
Book_±(liiLi£ 



^^-3f-^e^^ — 




llARLAEM M\i^^'" 



ITS USIu rRE\'10lIS TO AND SINCE 



iU 



W ^ 



9/S 



T II K 11 1 : V O I. U T I O N A II Y W A II 



AXI) SUOliRSTIDXS KEI.ATIVE TO 



resent ^onteniphiteir |nipro.beiuent. 



NEW YORK : 

PRINTED BY J. D. TORRE Y, 13 8PRTJCE STREET, 






1857. 



HZ 



%;S^x' 




V" 



HAELAEM RIVER. 



An Historical Compilation from authenticated documents re- 
lative to this River, showing the extreme difficulties and 
expenses that individuals have been put to, to prevent it 
from being artijiciaily and illegally destroyed, which has 
been partially accomplished up to the present date, when 
its actual use is beginning now to illustrate its true value ; and 
hereafter we hope it will have plenty of supporters, not only to 
prevent further depredations, but to remove the outrages that 
still in a small degree exist ; and such steps may be taken 
to carry out the artificial improvements which have been 
suggested and set forth from time to time by long-sighted 
and wise men for the last half century. This work is pre- 
pared for the use of those who feel an interest in the sub- 
ject. The original documents, from which this is compiled 
(such as are not already legislative and legal records,) are 
in the possession of L. G. Morris, of Mount Fordham, West- 
chester County, who will vouch for their being original pa- 
pers. 

Moun; P'ordham, December, I'-GG. 



.CONTENTS. 



Pack 

Preface 1 

Meeting of the Citizens of the County of Westchester, March, 1838, in Relation 

to Crossing the Harlem River with the Croton Aqueduct, 5 

Instructions to Mr. Lewis G. Morris, from Robert Morris, and Others 10 

Questions proposed by Lewis G. Morris to Counsel, in relation to the Manner 

of Procedure, to Abate the Nuisance of McComb's Dam 11' 

Legal Opinion in Relation to McComb"s Dam, and the Bridge on it 12 

Indemnity to Mr. Morris, September 10, 1838 14 

Indemnity to Squire Marshall, from C. H. Hall and L. G Morris 14 

A Demand to get througli McComb's Dam and Coles' Bridge, by Schooner 

Superior, Captain Marshall (1838) 15 

A Demand on McComb's Dam, September 8th, 1838 16 

Legislative Document No. 190 — Bruen's Report of the Select Committee on 
several Petitions relative to the Navigation of the Harlem River — Feb- 
ruary 11. 1839 17 

Documents relating to Harlem River previous to and since the Revolutionary 

War 19 

Memorial to the Honorable the Senate and Assembly of the State of New 

York, in Legislature convened, 1833 31 

Answer in Chancery relative to McComb's Dam 35' 

Injunction Dissolved 53 

An Act to Incorporate the Harlem River Canal Company. Passed April 

16th, 1827. With an Amendment, passed May 13th, 1836 55 

An Act to amend and extend the Act entitled " An Act to Incorporate the 

Harlem River Canal Company." Passed April 16th, 1827 59 

Report of the Special Committee of the Boai'd of Assistant Aldermen, Novem- 
ber 26th, 1838, A. T. Anderson. Chairman, David Graham, jr., L. N. 

-Jarvis, jr., Committee 62 

Preamble and Resolutions 75 

Harlaem Low Bridge — Warning to Masons and Builders 77 

Charter of Steamboat Thames, to L. G. Morris, 1838 79 

Form of Invitation to Excursion on Harlem River, from Harlem River Canal 

Company, 1838 81 

Subscriptions to sustain Suit in Court (L^. S.). by Mr. Geay against the Water 

Commissioners, relative to Harlem River. November, 1838 83 

Subscription List for carrying on Law Suit 85 

Subscription List — Steamer Thames 87 



( IV ) 

Page 

Report of the Committee ou Koads and Canals, relative to the Removal of Ob- 
structions to the Free Navigation of the Harlaem River and Spuy ten Duyvel 
Creek ; A. V. Williams, Chairman. (Board of Assistant Aldermen, Janu- 
ary 22d, 1838— Doc. No. 126.') 88 

Report of George C. Schaeffer, on the Subject of Improving the Navigation 

of the Harlem River 99 

An Act prescribing the Manner in which the Croton Aqueduct shall pass the 

Harlem River. Passed May 30, 1839 107 

Letter to Samuel Stevens, President Board of Water Commissioners 108 

Reply of Mr. Stevens 109 

Letter from L. G. Morris to Robert Schuyler, President of the New York and 

Harlem Rail Road Company, 1852 110 

Reply of Mr. Schuyler 113 

Remonstrance from Landowners, of 3120 Acres, against Bridging Harlem Riv- 
er by the New York and New Rochelle Rail Road Company, 1852 114 

Arnold Mason's Affidavit as to Nine Years' Experience on Hai'lem River 118 

William H. Colwell's Affidavit as to 800 Cargoes in 1852 120 

Statement of Captains of Seven Vessels on Harlem River, March 29th, 1852 . . 121 

Statement of William S. Carman, as to 25 Cargoes, 1852 123 

Statement of J. W. Watson, as to 149 Cargoes, 1852 124 

Mayor Wood's communication to the Common Council, 1856 125 

Decision in the Supreme Court, Renwick vs. Morris. (3d Hill's Reports pp. 

261 & 264.) 127 

Superior Court, Bill of Exceptions. Renwick vs. Morris 130 

Clerk's Certificate as to Signature of Judges of Superior Court 138 

Clerk's Certificate as to the Signature of Judges of the Supreme Court 140 

Proceedings in Court of Errors 140 

Unanimous Result in favor of Defendant — Opinion of the Supreme Court, Jus-,^gf( 

tice Cowen 141 

Extract from the " Westchester Gazette" byPublicola, dated Tremont, January 

1857, 143 

Account of Expenditures in Running Steamboat Thames, in 1838 145 

Account of Expenditures to prevent artificial obstructions in the Harlaem 

River, from August 1838 to August 1857 149 



MEETING 

OF THE 

CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER, 



IN RELATION TO 



CROSSING THE HARLEM RIVER WITH THE CROTON 
AaUEDUCT, BY INVERTED SYPHONS. 



At a numerous meeting of the citizen landholders of the 
County of Westchester, held at the house of Christopher 
Walton, on the Manor of Fordham, on Saturday, the third 
of March, 1838, at three o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant 
to previous notice, Robert Morris, senior, was called to the 
chair, and Peter Valentine and Augustus Heustace were 
appointed secretaries. The object of the meeting having been 
explained, it was 

Resolved, That Nicholas Berrian, Gouverneur Morris, Peter 
Briggs, Peter Lawrence, and Samuel Mapes, be a committee 
to prepare and report to the meeting a proper memorial to 
be presented to the Legislature of this State, in relation to 
the contemplated obstruction of the navigation of the Harlem 
River by the aqueduct from the Croton River to the City of 
New York. Said committee, after having retired, Gouverneur 
Morris reported the annexed memorial, which, having been 
read, upon motion, it was unanimously adopted. And it was 

Resolved, That the said memorial be signed by the chair- 
man and secretaries of this meeting, and by each of the 
citizens of Westchester county present. 

It was Resolved, That Thomas C. Taylor, Gouverneur Mor- 
ris, and William H. Morris, be a committee to ascertain the 
best method of proceeding to remove the obstructions caused 
to the navigation of the Harlem River by Macomb's Dam, 
Cole's Bridge, &c., with power to call a meeting of the County 
of Westchester, at such time and place as they may designate, 
and report their proceedings. 

It was Resolved, That a copy of the memorial be circulated, 
that the citizens of the county of Westchester, who are not 
present, may have an opportunity to sign the same. 



( 6 ) 

It was Resolved, That Lewis G. Morris be appointed by 
this meeting to go to the City of Albany to present said 
memorial to the Legislature of this State, and also to further 
the passage of a law in pursuance of said memorial. 

It was Resolved, That a copy of the memorial and the pro- 
ceedings of this meeting be sent to the Water Commissioners 
of the City of New York. 

It was Resolved, That Andrew Fendley and Christopher 
Walton be a committee to attend to the publishing of the 
memorial and proceedings of this meeting, in as many of the 
papers published in the County of Westchester and City of 
New York as they may think necessary. 

It was Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting be 
signed by the chairman and secretaries thereof. 

Upon motion, the meeting adjourned. 

ROBERT MORRIS, Sen., Chairman. 



Augustus Heustace, ) ^i 

-o -17 } oecretar 

Teter Valentine, ) 



les. 



REMONSTRANCE. 

To the Legislature of the State of New York: 

Your memorialists, inhabitants of the county of Westches- 
ter, owners and occupants of farms therein, and many of us 
the owners and occupants of farms descended to us from our 
ancestors long previous to the revolutionary war, respectfully 
represent : 

That we have lately learned that the Water Commissioners, 
appointed under the act for supplying the City of New York 
with pure and wholesome water, have determined to carry the 
water across Harlem River by inverted syphons over a low 
bridge built over an embankment of stone from the Westches- 
ter side, filling up the natural channel of the river, with only 
one archway on the New York side, of 80 feet in width and 
50 feet in height, when the water is now only about four feet 
deep at low water, instead of by the previously approved 
method of an aqueduct bridge 128 feet above the tide, with 
arches of eighty feet span, dispersed across the entire width 
of the river. 

The reason assigned for this alteration of the original plan 
is, that the aqueduct bridge will cost the City of New York 
$935,745; the inverted syphon, $426,027, making $509,718, 
the difference in the cost to the City of New York. 

Against this alteration from the original plan, your memo- 
rialists remonstrate, because the low bridge would be injurious 
to the property of your memorialists in this, that it would per- 
manently destroy the navigation of the Harlem River. The 



( 7 ) 

Harlem River is an arm of the sea ; in it the tide ebbs and 
flows ; it is an estuary of the East River ; its width varies 
from 150 to 400 yards — and its depth, up to Kingsbridge, 
varies from 8 to 2 fathoms ; it runs into the Spuytendevil 
Creek, and by that is connected with the Hudson River. By 
it the Hudson and East Rivers are connected, and the Island 
of New York formed. The distance from the East River by 
the line of the Harlem River and Spuytendevil Creek, is six 
miles. The Harlem River (before the artificial obstructions 
of Macomb's dam and Cole's bridge) was navigated by schoon- 
ers, sloops, and other vessels, to a dock near Kingsbridge, 
called Berrian's landing, and many of your memorialists, and 
the ancestors of others of your memorialists, used the Harlem 
River to convey their produce to market. 

Your memorialists further show unto your honorable body, 
that various surveys have been made of the Harlem River and 
Spuytendevil Creek at the instance of the Corporation of the 
City of New York, with the view of opening through them a 
navigation for large vessels from the North to the East Rivers. 
These surveys have been made by eminent engineers, who 
have reported such navigation could be effected at a cost of 
not over $100,000. 

Y'^our memorialists further show unto your honorable body, 
that by the laws authorizing the construction of the Cole's 
bridge and Macomb's dam, each said bridge is obliged to have 
a good and sufficient draw to admit the passage of boats and 
vessels ; and to keep and provide suitable persons to attend 
the same, so that no unnecessary delay may be occasioned 
to those desirous to pass through. It is true that neither of 
these bridges have been constructed and kept in a manner 
as not to interrupt the navigation of the Harlem River ; but 
it is equally true, in the estimation of your memorialists, that 
any of your memorialists may compel said bridges so to be 
altered as not to interrupt said navigation ; and that, in con- 
formity with the said opinion, the inhabitants of the town of 
Westchester, at their last annual meeting, appropriated $300 
for rebuilding the dock at old Berrian landing-place — intend- 
ing to compel said bridges to repair and build their draws, so 
as to restore the ancient navigation of the Harlem River. 

Your memorialists therefore respectfully contend, that the 
Water Commissioners cannot legally make any erection across 
said Harlem River, which will interfere with your memorial- 
ists' vested right to navigate the said Harlem River, or which 
will tend to prevent feasible and important improvements of 
said navigation. 

Your memorialists further represent to your honorable body, 
that by none of the acts of your honorable body, in relation 



( 8 ) 

to supplying the City of New York with pure and wholesome 
water, is there any express authority given to cross the Har- 
lem River with an aqueduct ; still your memorialists are free 
to admit that the authority to bring the waters of the Croton 
river to the City of New York implies, of necessity, the right 
to erect over the Harlem River works sufficient to carry the 
water across it. 

This implied right, however, does not extend further than 
to authorize them to do it with the least possible injury to the 
rights of others. As the manner of crossing the river is not 
designated in the act, they will not be permitted to look only 
to what it will cost them, but they must be governed by what 
will be least injurious to your memorialists. By the present 
proposed manner of crossing the Harlem River, vessels with 
masts over 50 feet under no circumstances can pass under the 
aqueduct ; and, the channel being filled, vessels of but small 
draft of water can pass under it. The whole force of the river 
being concentrated in a channel of 80 feet at every stage of 
the tide except slack water, the force of the tide through the 
space will be such as to prevent navigation, rendering it dan- 
gerous. Your honorable body will perceive — if the Harlem 
River is restored to its original navigable situation, to which 
your memorialists intend restoring it — how valuable the 
adjoining shores must become to their owners for mechanical 
and manufacturing purposes, and for docks from which to 
transmit produce to market. 

Should the contemplated improvement of connecting the 
navigation of the Hudson with that of the East River be 
effected, both shores of the Harlem must become a city, occu- 
pied by mechanics of different denominations ; by lumber 
yards, ship yards, storehouses, and every description of occu- 
pation which will resort to a safe harbor, with a safe and 
immediate water communication with the City of New York. 

Your memorialists further show unto your honorable body, 
that during the time the surveys were made through the lands 
of your memorialists for the course of the aqueduct, and also 
during the investigation by the commissioners appointed to 
estimate the damage to many of your memorialists, by the 
course and construction of said aqueduct, your memorialists 
were led to believe, and did believe, said aqueduct was to 
cross the Harlem River over a high bridge with many arches, 
so as not in the least to interfere with the navigation of said 
river. 

Your memorialists further show to your honorable body, 
that said commissioners, in estimating the damage to your 
memorialists, and your memorialists in accepting the damage 



( 9 ) 

awarded to them, did not take into consideration damage 
resulting from any obstruction to the navigation of the Harlem 
River. 

Your memorialists insist that it would be inequitable in the 
extreme, for the purpose of saving to the taxable inhabitants 
of the City of New York the payment of $509,718 to be 
divided among them — that some of your memorialists should 
be compelled to lose the large amounts of difference of value 
of their lands and farms, being bounded upon a navigable 
stream, or being placed upon water, interrupted as would be 
the Harlem River with the contemplated bridge and syphons. 
To many of your memorialists the damage would be to the 
amount of thousands ; whereas to none of the inhabitants of 
the City of New York could the high bridge add in cost over 
a few dollars, and that, too, where all the benefit of the work 
is for the citizens of New York, and no benefit to any of your 
memorialists. 

Your memorialists therefore ask your honorable body to 
amend the laws in relation to supplying the City of New York 
with pure and wholesome water, so as to compel the commis- 
sioners to adopt some plan to cross the Harlem River with 
their aqueduct, which will not interfere with the navigation of 
said river, 

Robert Morris, sen. Augustus Heustace, 

Peter Valentine, Benjamin McVickar, 

William H. Morris, Edward B, Briggs, 

John Cromwell, Heman Le Roy Newbold, 

Lewis Morris (by attor- Henry M, Morris, 

ney), Frederick Briggs, 

Peter Lawrence, Nicholas Berien, 

Dennis Valentine, Samuel Mapes, 

Andrew Findlay, George F. Briggs, 

William Bathgate, jr., Henry Coggswell, 

John Bussing, jr., Samuel Wake, 

L. G. Morris, T. W. Ludlow (by his at- 

Abraham Valentine, torney), 

William Johnson, jr., Peter Briggs, 

Gouverneur Morris, John Johnston, 

Christopher Walton, Benjamin Valentine, 

James Johnston, James Williams, 

John D, Poold, Henry B, E. Wood, 

Jacob Archer, and one hundred others. 



INSTRUCTIONS 

TO 

MR. LEWIS G. MOORIS, 

FROM 

ROBERT MORRIS, AND OTHERS. 



New York, September 8th, 1838. 
Mr. Lewis G. Morris : 

Sir, — We, the undersigned, hereby authorize you to pro- 
ceed to the removal of a nuisance in Harlem River, occasion- 
ed by the sinking of Macomb's dam. Our opinion is, that it 
will only be necessary to take out one pier ; we, however, 
leave this matter entirely to your discretion. We recommend 
the employment of a strong force of men and scows, that the 
work may be promptly effected, and to the end of obviating 
opposition. The expenses are, of course, to be sustained by 
the undersigned parties. 

We are, respectfully. 

Your obedient servants, 

Robert Morris, 
Charles Henry Hall, 
Lewis Morris. 
P. procuration. 
Samuel Ward, 

Francis C. Grey, I t n ■ivt^^t,,^ 

,,, -r, IT ^ L. G. Morris. 

Wm. Beach Lawrence, 

J. G. Pierson, 

Thomas W. Ludlow. 

GoUVERNEUR MoRRlS. 

J. and M. Dyckman. 



QUESTIONS 

PROPOSED BY 

LEWIS G. MORRIS TO COUNSEL, 

In relation to the Manner of Procedure, to Abate the Nuisana 
of MaconiUs Dam. 



1. Should the vessel I employ to pass through Macomb"? 
dam belong to a State other than the State of New York ? 

2. Should she be a vessel of the size of vessels navigating 
the Harlem River previously to the erection of the Macomb's 
dam ? 

3- Should the persons to assist in removing the obstruction 
come from on board the vessels to be used, or may they come 
from the adjoining shores ? 

4. May I throw the timbers and plank of the obstruction 
into the river ? or must I preserve them on the adjoining 
shore ? 

5. May the vessel be loaded with manure, instead of coals '' 

6. As it will be necessary to employ men and scows for a 
number of days after the bridge is torn down, to take away 
stone, which will obstruct the passage of boats at low water, 
what must I do, in case the men, or any of them, should be 
arrested as trespassers, w^hich would impede the work ? 



LEGAL OPINION 

IN RELATION TO 

MACOMB'S DAM, AND THE BRIDGE ON IT. 



Upon examining the act authorizing Robert Macomb to 
make this dam, it requires that there should be a means of pass- 
ing for vessels, such as usually have navigated Harlem River. 
Vessels with standing masts have been used so to navigate, 
and they, too, of considerable burden. The dam, therefore, 
does not conform to the license given by the act ; and as the 
Harlem River is a tide-water, and therefore a highway, the 
illegal erection in it is a common nuisance, and as such may 
be abated by any citizens needing or wishing to use the pas- 
sage. This, independently of any questions growing out of 
the exclusive right of Congress to regulate commerce, under 
the Constitution of the United States. 

We are therefore of opinion that Macomb's dam is a com- 
mon nuisance, and may be removed from obstructing the 
navigation by the gentlemen of the neighborhood and their 
assistants. 

In answer to the several questions proposed by Mr. Morris, 
yve would reply : 

1. That it is not essential that the vessel opening the navi- 
gation should belong to another State ; but it is desirable, 
with the view of being able to raise the constitutional ques- 
tion, as well as to try the common law right. 

2. That it is desirable that the vessel should be of the size 
previously navigating the Harlem River. 

3. That the persons assisting in the removal of the obstruc- 
tions should come from on board the vessels used, and seeking 
a passage. 

4. While it would be, for some reasons, desirable to leave 
the timber there, yet it is not essential ; and the reasons for 
a removal of it are of more weight, and it should be removed. 

5. That, for the reason stated in the first answer, some 
coals from New Jersey or Pennsylvania might well form part 
of the cargo ; but this is not essential. 



( 13 ) 

6. In case any of the men are arrested, they should be 
forthwith bailed ; but I know of no right to arrest them, unless 
a riot should arise in which they should take j:)art. 

Daniel Lord, Jr. 
J. Prescott Hall, 
Robert H. Morris, 
Abel T. Anderson. 
September 10, 1838. 



INDEMNITY TO MR. MORRIS. 

September 10, 1838. 



Mr. Lewis G. Morris : 

Sir, — Being interested in the removal of the obstruction to 
the navigation of the Harlem River by Macomb's dam, we 
request you to take measures to open that navigation, by 
removing one or two of the bents of the bridge, and one or 
more of the piers, to their foundation, if you find necessary, 
for opening the navigation. We recommend the employrrient 
of such a number of persons as to^accomplish the removal and 
opening with despatch, and without opposition. 

We shall, of course, expect to bear with you any expenses, 
and to indemnify you — uniting with you in your measures, 
which we leave to your good discretion. 

Gouverneur Morris, 

William H. Morris, 

W. B. Lawrence, for self; 

Sam'l Ward & J. Green Pearson. 



INDEMNITY TO SQUIRE MARSHALL, 

FROM C. H. HALL and L. G MORRIS. 



We, the undersigned, agree to indemnify Squire Marshall for 
any damage that may arise to his schooner Superior, in passing 
through the Draw of the Bridge called Coles'. 

Harlem, August 3\st, 1838. 

Chas. Henry Hall, 
L. G. Morris. 



A DEMAND 

TO GET THROUGH MACOMB'S DAM AND COLES' BRIDGE, 

BY SCHOONER SUPERIOR CAPTAIN MARSHALL. 



1838. 



Harlem River, on Board Schooner 
Superior, August 30th, 1838. 

Captain Squire Marshall attempted to pass through the draw 
of Coles' bridge at half-past 10 o'clock P. M., and got fast in 
the^raw at 20 minutes before 12 o'clock P. M., at or nearly 
low water ; depth of water under the draw 4 feet, depth at the 
stern of schooner, 12 feet ; persons on board, Gouv'r Morris, 
Lewis G. Morris, Washington Majory, James Gear, and Henry 
Weed ; persons detained with their teams on the bridge, in 
consequence of the sloop's stoppage, John Butler, West Farms, 
James Archer, Milesquare, Edward B. Briggs, Eaton Edwards, 
£. C, John Harris Curtis, New Rochelle, Walter Turnbull, 
E. C, Benj'n Archer, Isaac Gott, J. A. Flemming, C. E. 
Flemming, 94 Grand Street, N. Y., 2 Sisters. 

The schooner could not get through the draw until 20 
minutes before 5 A. M. on the 31st of August, 1838. 

Schooner Superior, Capt. Marshall, applied to Mr. Feeks to 
pass above Macomb's dam with a load of brick for the Croton 
aqueduct, and the answer which Mr. Feeks gave him was that 
he could not let him through, and that they all knew he could 
not. In the presence of Gouv'r Morris, Lewis G. Morris, 
Washington Majory, James Gear, Henry Weed, Thomas H. 
Smith, at half-past 6 o'clock on the morning of the 31st of 
August, 1838. 

City and County of Neiv York, ss. 

Lewis G. Morris, of Fordham, being duly sworn, says, the 
preceding memorandum contains a true statement of facts, 
and said memorandum was made by him in his own hand 
writing, at the dates therein mentioned. 

L. G. MORRIS. 
Sworn this 13th day of January, 
1857, before me, 

Walter Edwards, Notary Public. 



( 16 ) 

On information being taken to the Coles' Bridge Co., they 
immediately sent a very strong force of mechanics to remove 
the obstructions under the bridge and put a new draw of 
modern structure. 



A DEMAND 
ON MACOMB'S DAM 



SEPTEMBER 8th, 1838. 



I, this 8th day of September, 1838, at a quarter past Gt^M., 
offered my sail boat at Macomb's Dam, with Robert Morris, 
Lewis Morris, Daniel Lord, Jr., Prescott Hall, Charles H. 
Hall, Jr., and myself, and demanded of Mr. Feeks assistance 
in putting us through the dam, which he declined. 



L. G. MORRIS. 



STATE OF NEW YORK. 



No. 190. 
IN ASSEMBLY, 

February 11, 1839. 

REPORT 

Of the Select Committee on several Petitions relative to the 
Navigation of the Harlem River. 

Mr. Bruen, from the select committee, to whom was refer- 
red the memorial of Richard Riker, president of the Harlem 
River Canal Company ; also a petition from the supervisors 
and board of trustees and other inhabitants of the county of 
Westchester, which relate to the navigation of the Harlem 
river ; and also a petition from a great number of the citizens 
of New York city on the same subject, 

REPORTS : 

That your committee are informed and believe that the 
Harlem river is an arm or inlet of the sea, connecting Long 
Island sound with the Hudson river. And that before artifi- 
cial obstructions were interposed, the tide ebbed and flowed 
through this channel, and afforded free ingress and egress to 
vessels of every description. The committee have appended 
to this report several affidavits which have been presented to 
them to establish these facts. 

On the 26th day of February, 1833, an act was passed by 
the Legislature entitled, "An act for the appointment of com- 
missioners in relation to supplying the city of New York with 



( 18 ) [Assembly. 

pure and wholesome water," which authorized the said com- 
missioners to construct an aqueduct across the Harlem river, 
to carry the waters of the Croton river to the city of New 
York ; and the said commissioners were required therein to 
report annually to the common council of the said city. In 
accordance to said requirement, a report was made on the 
12th day of Novemher, 1833, in which the said commission- 
ers refer to and approve of a report of their chief engineer, 
David B. Douglass. The said chief engineer describes the 
mode by which the said water is to be carried across the Har- 
lem river, in the following words : " The river is to be crossed 
by an aqueduct bridge of 18 chains, or 1,188 feet in length, 
and consisting of nine plain semicircular arches ; the height, 
to the water line of the aqueduct, will be 126 feet." This 
plan will not, as the memorialists say, and the committee 
believe, materially interfere with the navigation of the said 
river. Subsequent to the report referred to (and with which 
was submitted a plan and profile of the proposed work), the 
said water commissioners, as is represented in said memorial, 
which is hereto annexed, have determined to make material 
alterations in said plan of the aqueduct, and design making a 
stone wall or dam across the channel of the said river, at a 
point where it is 300 feet wide, and more than 20 feet deep. 
By this proceeding, a space or span of one or more arches, 
will leave only one hundred and twenty feet of said river free 
from obstruction, and this on the margin of the stream where 
there is but two feet water at low tide. Thus the vast volume 
of water that ebbs and flows through this wide and deep chan- 
nel, will be confined to so small a space as to render the river 
almost, if not entirely, useless for the purposes of navigation. 

The common council of the city of New York have no 
power to control the action of the water commissioners, and 
therefore the memorialists have applied to this Legislature for 
protection and relief. 

The committee, having satisfied themselves of the propriety 
and justice of the remedy sought by the petitioners, have pre- 
pared a bill, which they ask leave to submit, and which is 
intended to confine the action of the said water commissioners 
to the evident intent and meaning of the law under which they 
hold their appointment. 



DOCUMENTS- 



I, Andrew Corsa, of the town of Westchester, aged seventy- 
six years and upwards, say, that during my lifetime, I have 
lived in said town, and that before the construction of Har- 
lem and Macomb's bridges, I had lumber brought by vessels 
up Harlem river for all the purposes of building several build- 
ings, which materials were landed at Berrian's landing place. 
And I further state, that all the produce was conveyed to 
the market of New York by Harlem river, and that it was a 
common thoroughfare for the transportation of produce from 
the Manor of Fordham to New York ; that I heard of no diffi- 
culty as to depth of water for schooners, sloops, and petti- 
augers, which were used in those days. 

Andrew Corsa. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. ] 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Garrett Garrison, of the town of Yonkers, in the county 
of Westchester, saith : I am the age of seventy-five years at 
June next ; that I have been acquainted with Harlem river 
about fifty years, and have seen pettiaugers navigating said 
river as far up as the New King's or Farmer's bridge, and that 
I have been a passenger on board the above-described vessels 
repeatedly. And I further state, that I think and believe that 
there is water enough for vessels of sixty tons as far up as said 
bridge. his 

Garrett X Garrison. 
mark. 
Signed in presence of Peter Valentine. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. \ 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Charles Hadley, of the town of Westchester, am about 
seventy-five years of age, and have been acquainted with Har- 
lem river my lifetime ; and that before the construction of 
Macomb's dam I knew the said river to be navigated by sloops, 

2 



( 20 ) [Assembly. 

schooners, and pettiaugers, up to the bridge opposite the Ja- 
cob Vermilylea farm, near King's bridge. 

Charles Hadley. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. ) 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Dennis Valentine, of the town of Westchester, am seven- 
ty-two years of age ; have lived in said town on the farm 
which I now own, adjoining Harlem river, since I was seven 
years old ; and that I saw in the revolutionary war lumber 
and materials for building barracks for the continental army, 
which barracks were situate on the farm I now own, and sev- 
eral farms adjacent bordering on the said Harlem river, and 
that such lumber was brought by Albany sloops, and that after 
the British had taken possession of this part of the country; 
and that they were supplied with provisions brought by ves- 
sels of the former description ; and that quantities of stone 
have been freighted from quarries adjoining said river ; and 
has commonly known vessels to navigate the Harlem river 
for the purpose of carrying produce since the revolutionary 
war, and previous to the construction of Macomb's dam, as far 
up as Berrian's landing and above. 

Dennis Valentine. 
8worn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. \ 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Townsend Poole, of the town and county of Westchester, 
aged sixty-nine years and upwards, have lived on a farm ad- 
joining Harlem river, of which I now own part thereof; that 
I have in that time seen said river navigated by sloops and 
pettiaugers, freighting lumber, stone, &c.; and that lumber, 
rails, and posts, were brought by vessels of the above descrip- 
tion to my father's farm. 

Townsend Poole. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. i 

Peter Valentine, Com?nissioner of Deeds. 

I, John Devoe, of the town and county of Westchester, aged 
sixty years and upwards, have lived from childhood on the 
banks and adjoining Harlem river, and have seen vessels 
freighting lumber, stone, 6cc., up and down said river; have , 
employed a pettiauger in bringing lumber for my building ; 
and lumber was brought from New York for my brother's 



No. 190.] ( 21 ) 

purpose in the same manner before the construction of Ma- 
comb's dam. 

John Devoe. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day ) 
of March, 1838, before me. ) 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Nicholas Berrien, of the town of Westchester, aged sev- 
enty years and upwards, have been a resident and owner of 
a farm bordering on Harlem river, unt'l the year 1835 ; have 
seen Harlem river navigated by pettiaugers and sloops from 
the time of the revolutionary war until near about the time 
of the construction of Macomb's dam ; that I have sailed a 
sloop from Berrien's landing, and that I have seen sloops and 
pettiaugers freighted with various kinds of produce and build- 
ing materials, navigating said river ; and that I never knew 
of any difficulty arising from want of depth of water. 

Nicholas Berrien. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day 
of March, 1838, before me. 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

I, Frederick Corsa, of the town of V^estchester, aged seven- 
ty-live years and upwards, have lived in Westchester my life- 
time, and during any knowledge have known Harlem river, 
and known it to be navigated by sloops and pettiaugers, 
freighted with lumber, stones, produce, &c., previous to the 
erection of Macomb's dam. his 

Frederic k^ Corsa 
mark. 
Witnessed by Peter Valentine. 
Sworn and subscribed to, this 6th day } 
of March, 1838, before me. \ 

Peter Valentine, Commissioner of Deeds. 

City and County of New York, ss. 

George C. SchsefFer, of said city, civil engineer, being duly 
affirmed, doth depose and say, that in the year 1836, he, the 
deponent, was employed by the corporation of the city of New 
York, in his capacity of civil engineer, to make an examina- 
tion and survey of Harlem river ; that the deponent did ac- 
cordingly make such examination and survey; made his report 
thereof, with full and accurate maps of the same, which report, 
survey, and maps, are now in the street commissioner's office, 
in the city of New York. 

The deponent further saith, that he is w«ll acquainted with 



( 22 ) [Assembly 

the bed and channel of said river in all its parts, having thus 
examined the same ; that said river is a navigable river, in 
which the tide ebbs and flows throughout its whole extent, 
from its commencement at the East river and Sound, to its 
junction with Spuytendevil creek, which last creek is in fact 
a continuation of the same, flowing into the Hudson river at 
about twelve miles distant from the city hall of the city of 
New York, which said last mentioned creek is also a navigable 
stream ; that said Harlem river is from 600 to about 400 feet 
wide from shore to shore, and from its commencement on the 
East river to its junction with Spuytendevil creek, about six 
miles in length ; that said river is much impaired by large 
deposites of mud formed therein, and by sundry artificial ob- 
structions, all of which might be modified and removed ; but 
that notwithstanding such deposite, there is a good and suffi- 
cient channel-way in said river, running through its extent, of 
the width of from 400 feet at Harlem bridge, to 150 feet at the 
upper end, and only decreasing to 100 feet at or near the junc- 
tion with Spuytendevil creek, and of a depth about 30 feet at 
Harlem bridge, to 13 feet, except near said Kingsbridge, where 
it is about 6 or 7 feet at low tide ; and that vessels of about 
one hundred tons can at all times navigate said river with ease 
and safety. 

The deponent further saith, that the tide ordinelrily rises 
between 5 and 6 feet in said river, and when high winds pre- 
vail from the east, the influx is much increased, and, with 
greater velocity, causing the water to rise much higher, so that 
in some cases, while deponent was making his said survey of 
said river, places ordinarily dry at high tides were rapidly 
covered with water to the depth of 2 feet, or thereabouts. 

The deponent further saith, that he is well acquainted with 
the place where it is proposed to carry the Croton aqueduct 
across said Harlem river, and hath also examined the printed 
plan, with the maps of the bridge to support iron pipes, pro- 
posed to be built on said river, and for which, as the deponent 
IS informed, the water commissioners have made a contract ; 
and this deponent doth verily believe, from his knowledge of 
said river, and from his examination of said plan, that the 
building of such bridge to support iron pipes in the manner 
proposed, will destroy said river for all the general navigable 
purposes for which it can be used, inasmuch as, 

1st. The whole tide current must necessarily be forced 
through an opening of 120 feet, which space, in the opinion of 
the deponent, is utterly insufficient for the purpose, and must 
cause through such opening, so violent a current, that the said 
bridge would be impassable, either against the current or with 



No. 190.] ( 23 ) 

the current, at all times except within a few minutes after slack 
water. 

2d. That such opening being- proposed to be over the flat or 
deposite, on the New York side of the river, a new channel- 
way must be formed, (the natural channel being dammed up 
and filled in by the embankment of said bridge,) by the removal 
of said deposit, which, as deponent is informed and believes, is 
proposed to be done by loosening the same, and allowing it to 
flow off" and settle in other parts of said river ; and the deponent 
doth verily belive, that by such process, such deposite will 
form a bar on either side such opening, and in other parts of 
said river form and create shoals where there is now deep 
water. 

3d. That inasmuch as it is proposed to allow an arch of 
only 65 feet in height at the centre, vessels having masts and 
spars of about 50 feet in height and under, only, can by the 
most dexterous management, pass under the same with safety, 
even at slack water ; and that thus the navigation of said river 
would be at said point and above, entirely destroyed, except 
for small boats, and f.hat even with them, there would be con- 
stant sources of danger, and that vessels which can and would 
use the same in its natural state, would be debarred therefrom. 

The deponent further saith, that if the embankment on which 
said low bridge is proposed to be raised, be built and thrown 
across said river, it cannot, under any circumstances, be en- 
tirely removed, and can be partially removed so as to restore 
the navigation only at a very great expense. 

GEORGE C. SCHAEFFER. 
Affirmed to, this 19th day of 

January, 1839, before me, 

J. H. M'CouN, Commissioner of Deeds. 

City and County of New York, ss. 

John C. Morgan, of Jersey City, State of New Jersey, being 
duly sworn, doth depose and say, that on the 9th of September 
last, he, the deponent, was on board of the pettiauger No?i- 
pariel, of about thirty tons burthen, on a voyage from Jersey 
City, in the said State of New Jersey, to Morris', near Berrien's 
landing, in Harlem river, in the county of Westchester, and 
State of New York ; that said vessel had on board as cargo, a 
quantity of coal and other articles, to be delivered, and which 
was actually delivered at said landing — that said vessel was, 
as deponent believes, regularly navigated under the laws of 
the United States. Deponent further saith, that he had the 
principal charge of said vessel on said voyage, the master there- 
of not then being on board said vessel ; that said vessel passed 



( 24 ) [Assembly 

through Macomb's dam, on the said Harlem river, on the night 
of the 14th of September, delivered her cargo according to the 
bill of lading thereof, and returned on the 16th of said month. 
Deponent further saith, that he has been since, at different times, 
on Harlem river aforesaid, and is well acquainted with its 
character and general fitness for the purposes of navigation ; 
that said river is a navigable river, in which the tide ebbs and 
flows about five feet in perpendicular height ; that said river is 
at least 650 feet wide upon the average, having a good channel- 
way of about 20 feet deep, from its junction with the East 
river to Berrien's landing, at least, easily navigated, and of 
about 300 feet in width ; and that the deponent has seen 
diff'erent vessels upon the said river, in the ordinary course of 
trade, of such size and dimensions as would, by the laws of the 
United States, require a regular license. 

Deponent further saith, that he is well acquainted with the 
place where it is proposed to carry the Croton aqueduct across 
said river, and hath also seen the spot proposed to be allowed 
as an opening for the passage of vessels through the same ; 
that such place is south of Berrien's landing, and between such 
landing and the city of New York, and is upon a mud flat, 
having in it not more than two feet of water at low tide, the 
channel being proposed to be filled in with stone ; that in the 
opinion of this deponent, formed from his knowledge of the 
river, such aqueduct, by restricting the water, must create such 
a rush of water through such opening, that no vessel can ever 
pass the same, except at slack water, and that by the removal 
of the deposite now in such place and its vicinity, shoals and 
bars will be created in said river, and in the channel thereof, 
and more especially in the upper part thereof towards Berrien's 
landing, in such manner as greatly to injure if not destroy the 
same for the purpose of navigation. 

The deponent further saith, that he measured the mast of a 
vessel of fifteen tons, lying in Harlem river, and that such 
mast, with its top-mast, was 78 feet in height, from the bottom 
of the vessel — that ordinarily a vessel of thirty tons has a 
mast between 70 and 80 feet high, and North river sloops of 
about 100 tons, masts of over 100 feet high. 

JOHN C. MORGAN. 
Sworn this 31st day of December, ) 
1838, before me, \ 

F. S. Kinney, Sitp. Court Com. 

Calvin Stoddart and William Williams, at present of Nor- 
wich, State of Connecticut, being duly sworn, doth depose 
and say, that in October and November last, they were engaged 



No. 190.] ( 25 ) 

in llie sailing and management of the steam-boat Thame-s, to 
wit, the said Stoddart as master thereof, and the said Williams 
as engineer thereof; that said vessel was employed under 
charge of the deponents, in October and November last, in 
navigating Harlem river, and in that time made sundry trips 
from the railroad bridge, at the village of Harlem, to Fordham 
bridge, near King's bridge, thus passing through Macomb's 
dam. And deponents further say, that they are well ac- 
quainted with said river, and the channel thereof, in all their 
parts ; that the same is a good navigable river in all its parts, 
easy of navigation, and having sufficient depth of water at all 
times, and tides for vessels of 100 tons, except near King's 
bridge. 

Deponents further say, that they are well acquainted with 
the place in said river where it is proposed to carry the Croton 
aqueduct across the same ; that they are informed and believe 
that it is proposed to allow an opening through said aqueduct 
of one hundred and twenty feet in width, and of sixty feet in 
height, for the passage of boats and vessels through the same, 
which opening is to be not over the channel-way but over the 
shoals or flats on the New York side of the river. 

The deponents say, that from their knowledge of the river, 
and also from their experience in the actual navigation thereof 
in and on board of said steam-boat Thames, they do verily 
believe that no boat or vessel of any kind, whether steam- 
boat or other vessel, will ever be able to pass through such 
opening except only at slack water, inasmuch as from the 
restriction of the tide flowing into said river, the current run- 
ning through such opening will be so rapid and voluminous as 
in fact to make an impassable cataract through such opening. 
The deponents further say, that they are the better satisfied 
with this opinion, inasmuch as they were unable to force said 
steam-boat through Macomb's dam, except only at high tide, 
and that at all other times such dam was impassable from the 
rapidity of the current. Deponents further say, that they are 
informed and believe, that the openings at Macomb's dam are 
in all about two hundred and twenty feet. 

These deponents further say, that they have seen the place 
where such opening is proposed to be left, marked out by a 
buoy, that at low tide there is not more than two feet water 
over the place, and that this is kept in by Macomb's dam ; 
that the place is unfavorable for the formation of a new chan- 
nel, being on the outer side of a curve ; and that if a new 
channel be formed there, the sediment and other matter now 
deposited there, if removed by the force of the current, must 
lodge in other parts of said river, and in the opinion of these 



( 26 ) [Assembly 

deponents, materially injure, if not destroy, the same for the 
general purposes of navigation ; that said steam-boat Thames 
is a licensed vessel, navigating under the laws of the United 
States, and belongs to the State of Connecticut, and further 
saith not. 

CALVIN STODDARD. 

WM. WILLIAMS. 



i; I ''■ 



State of Connecticut, 
Count]/ of New London, 
On this 12th day of January, A. D. 1839, at Norwich, in 
said county of New London, before me personally appeared 
Calvin Stoddard, one of the deponents named in the foregoing 
affidavit, and the said Calvin Stoddard subscribed the said affi- 
davit in my presence, and made oath to the' truth of the same. 
Before me, 

Jabez W. Huntington, a Judge of the 

Superior Court of the State of Conn. 

State of Connecticut, 



County of New London, ^ 

I, James Stedman, clerk of the Superior Court within and 
for the county of New London and State of Connecticut, do 
hereby certify, that Jabez W. Huntington, whose name is sub- 
scribed to the foregoing certificate, is a Judge of the Superior 
Court of the State of Connecticut ; that said court is in ex- 
istence under the laws of said State, and that the signature of 
said Judge to the foregoing certificate is in the proper hand 
writing of said Judge. 

In witnesss whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed 
the seal of said court, this fifteenth day of January, A. D. 1839. 

James Stedman, Clerk. 

City and County of New York, ss. 

Samuel Coon, of said city, being duly sworn, doth depose 
and say, that he is master of the schooner Eclipse, of New 
York, of thirty-six tons ; that said vessel is duly licensed at 
the custom-house in New York ; that said vessel has been en- 
gaged in trade and commerce between the city of New York 
and Nichols' dock, near King's bridge, and other places on 
Harlem riVer, in the months of September, October and No- 
vember last ; that said river is a navigable river, having suffi- 
cient water for vessels of a large class, as usually employed 
in the Hudson river ; that deponent is well acquainted with 
the channel-bed of said river, and with the place where it is 
proposed to carry the Croton aqueduct across the same ; and 



No. 190.] ( 27 ) 

has seen the place marked out where it is proposed to leave an 
opening through the same, for the passage of vesssels ; that in 
the opinion of deponent, as master of a vessel, and from his 
experience in and about the coasting trade, and the several 
rivers, creeks, harbors, and sounds, about New York and its 
vicinity, he is satisfied that the aqueduct as proposed to b(^ 
built, with an opening of only 120 feet, will destroy the said 
river for all navigable purposes, and more especially above 
such aqueduct, by creating bars and shoals in the channel and 
other parts thereof, from the mud deposite, now on the spot 
and its vicinity ; that such aqueduct must necessarily so re- 
strict the waters of said river as to create a violent current 
through such opening, and that such aqueduct will be im- 
passable for boats and vessels, except at slack water. Deponent 
further saith, that the masts, with the topmasts, of said 
schooner, are seventy-five feet from the bottom of the vessel. 
Deponent further saith, that he hath beat up and down said 
river when empty and when loaded. 

his 
SAMUEL X COON, 
mark. 
Sworn this 31st day of Decem- 
ber, 1838, before me, 

James Agnew, Commissioner of Deeds. 

City and County of New York, ss. 

Simon Hillyer and Thomas R. Tindall, both of Jersey City, 
State of New Jersey, being duly sworn, do depose and say, 
that they were on board the Nonpareil on a voyage from Jersey 
City to Morris' dock, near Berrien's landing, in Harlem river, 
county of Westchester, and State of New York, in the month 
of September last ; that said vessel arrived on the 15th at said 
dock, discharged her cargo and returned on the 16th ; that 
said vessel is of about thirty tons burthen, and has standing 
masts and spars. Deponents further say, that they are ac- 
quainted with the channel and bed of said Harlem river, and 
that the same is of sufficient capacity and depth for vessels of 
a large burthen. Deponents further say, that they are ac- 
quainted with the place where it is proposed to carry the Cro- 
ton aqueduct over the river, and have also seen the plan of the 
low bridge ; that in their opinion, from their experience in 
navigating the several rivers in and about New York and New 
Jersey, such low bridge will effectually destroy said Harlem 
river for all useful navigating purposes, by the formation of 
bars and shoals above and below such low bridge, and altering 
and impairing the natural channel thereof; and further, that it 



( 28 ) [Assembly 

would be impossible to pass a vessel through the opening pro- 
posed to be left in said low bridge, at any time except at slack 
water, with anything like safety. 

And the said Tindall, for himself saith, that he is Avell ac- 
quainted with Spuytendevil creek from the North river to 
King's bridge, that the same is navigable for vessels of from 
eighty to one hundred tons at high water, and would be so at 
all tides, were the shoal at the mouth of the same cleared 
out. 

SIMON IIILLYER, 

THOS. R. TINDALL. 

Sworn this 2d day of January, ) 
1839, before me, " \ 

James Agnew, Commissioner of Deeds. 

Extracts from an act entitled " An act for the appointment of 
commissioners in relation to supplying the city of New 
York with pure and wholesome water," passed February 26, 
1833. 

'^ 1, The Governor shall nominate, and with the consent 
of the Senate, shall appoint five persons, to be known as the 
water commissioners of the city of New York, who shall be 
citizens and inhabitants of the said city. 

^ 2. It shall be the duty of the said commissioners to 
examine and consider all matters relative to supplying the city 
of New York with a sufficient quantity of pure and wholesome 
water for the use of its inhabitants, and the amount of money 
necessary to effect that object. 

^ 4. The said commissioners shall make a report of their 
proceedings under this act, which shall contain their opinions 
as to the best plan of furnishing the city of New York with a 
sufficient supply of pure and wholesome water, and an estimate 
of the expense of carrying such plan into effect ; also, the 
reasons and calculations upon which such opinion and estimate 
may be founded ; and generally all such information connected 
with the object of their appointment, as they may deem im- 
portant. 

'^ 5. The said commissioners shall present a copy of the 
said report to the common council of the city of New York, 
on or before the first day of November of the year one thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-three ; and their said report 
shall be made and presented by them to the Legislature on or 
before the second Monday of January of the year one thousand 
eight hundred and thirty-four. 



No. 190.] ( 29 ) 

Extracts from the " Report of the commissioners under an 
act of the Legislature of this State, passed February 26th, 
1333, relative to the supply ins^ the city of New York with 
pure and wholesome water. — November, 1833." 
" To the honorable the common council of the city of New 
York : 
"The commissioners, appointed pursuant to an act of the 
Legislature of this State, entitled " An act for the appoint- 
ment of commissioners in relation to supplying the city of 
New York with pure and wholesome water," passed 26th 
Fehruary, 1833, and in obedience to the directions of said act, 
" Respectfully report : 
'' That viewing the subject as the commissioners do, of the 
utmost importance to the city and State of New York, they 
have bestowed all that reflection and attention to its details 
which their limited time and capacity would admit." 

******* 

" It is with great pleasure that the commissioners are ena- 
bled to present to the common council a full and ample report 
from Mr. Douglass, with a map and profile of the country in 
which the rivers, lakes, ponds and springs are situated, capable 
of supplying this city with an abundance of as pure and whole- 
some water as any country can boast of. 

" The following abridgment of the report alluded to will pre- 
sent a brief view of the conclusions arrived at by the engineer : 

" Two routes are proposed for bringing the waters of the 
Croton and its tributaries to the city of New York, which are 
termed by the engineer the Inland, or Saiv-Mill River Route, 
and the Hudson River Route. 

First, the Inland, or Saw-Mill River Route. 

(After detailing the course of the aqueduct through West- 
chester county, the report proceeds,) 

" From this the route passes on the Harlem river without 
any material obstruction to the work, either by deep cutting or 
high embankments. The river is to be crossed by an aqueduct 
])ridge of eighteen chains, or eleven hundred and eighty-eight 
teet in length, and consisting of nine plain semi-circular arches ; 
the height to the water line of the aqueduct will be 126 feet." 

Second, The Hudson River Route. 
" The Harlem river is to be crossed by lioth routes, in the 
same manner to the receiving reservoir, l)etween the Ninth 
and Tenth Avenues, and 133d and 137lh streets, on the island 
of New York." 



( 30 ) [Assembly. 



Extract from the report of D. B. Douglass, Esq. referred to in 
the commissioners' report : 

" The crossing at Harlem is proposed to be effected by 
means of an aqueduct bridge eighteen chains, or eleven hun- 
dred and eighty-eight feet long, from abutment to abutment, 
and consisting of nine plain semi-circular arches. The por- 
tion in which it is located on the map, is the narrowest at the 
height of the grade line, which the ground admits of, and is 
furnished with natural abutments of solid rock on both sides 
of the river. The river itself, including a small margin of low 
ground, is about six hundred feet wide, and on this distance, 
(comprising five or six of the piers,) the height of the struc- 
ture, from water line to water line, would be 126 feet, exclu- 
sive of hydraulic foundations, which would be from ten to 
twenty-five feet more. Our structure adapted to these dimen- 
sions would of course be a work of considerable labor and ex- 
pense, but by no means of paramount difficulty in either of 
these respects. Many bridges of much greater magnitude, 
both in length and height, have been erected in other countries 
for the same object, from which we are enabled to derive cer- 
tain data for all our calculations. — The aqueduct bridge of 
Lisbon for example, of which a fragment is exhibited in the 
annexed drawing. No. 5, consists of thirty-five arches, some 
of them more than 100 feet span and 230 feet high. The mo- 
dern aqueduct bridge of Caserta, near Naples, (see fragment 
No. 6,) is upwards of 1,600 feet long by 178 feet high, and 
consists of about 90 arches in three tiers. The aqueduct of 
Spoletto, (No. 7,) consists of ten arches, somewhat narrower 
than ours, but in height upwards of 300 feet ; and the iron 
canal aqueduct of Pontcyclyte, in Wales, (No. 8,) is 960 feet 
long and rests upon eighteen piers of brick, some of which are 
120 feet in height. Numerous other examples of a like kind 
might be quoted, but it may suffice for the present to name 
two only, in addition to those already mentioned, viz : the 
great aqueduct at Maintenon, in France, of six hundred and 
sixty-six arches, projected by Vauban, and partly built, being 
three and a quarter miles in length, and of various heights, 
from 50 to 220 feet. And lastly, the recently constructed 
aqueduct of Lucca, of one thousand arches. 

"With such examples of enterprise and skill before us. 
many of them undertaken for objects far less important than 
that of supplying the city of New York with water, we may 
certainly look upon the design of the Harlem aqueduct 
without fear." 



No. 190.] ( 31 ) 

Extract from a Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals of 
the Board of Aldermen, {Document No. 88,) April 23, 1838. 

•' In his (the chief enginer, Mr. Jervis,) opinion, as expressed 
to the committee, ' if the navigation of the river is to be pre- 
served, no modification of the low bridge would answer.' The 
low bridge was submitted without reference to the navigation, 
and the high bridge only would allow masted vessels to pass 
through." 



MEMORIAL 

TO THE 

HONORABLE THK SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 

IN LEGISLATU r'e CONVENED. 



The memorial of the undersigned, supervisor and board of 
trustees of the town of Westchester, in the county of West- 
chester, and of other inhabitants of the said county, 

Respectfully Represents : 

That, in pursuance of an act of the Legislature of the State 
of New York, passed 26th February, 1833, certain persons 
were appointed commissioners to make preliminary investiga- 
tions as to the best means of supplying the city of New York 
with pure and wholesome water ; that the said commissioners 
reported a plan, which was approved of, in the manner required 
in the said act, and which contemplated the introduction of the 
water from the Croton river into the cicy of New York for the 
purpose aforesaid ; that according to the said plan, the Harlem 
river was to be crossed by an aqueduct bridge of 18 chains or 
1,188 feet in length, and consisting of nine semi-circular 
arches ; the height of the water line of the aqueduct to be 126 
feet ; that this plan, your memorialists are informed and be- 
lieve, would not essentially interfere with the navigation of the 
said river ; and that, therefore, no opposition to the said plan 
was made by your memorialists ; that in consequence of this 



( 32 ) [ASSEMBLY 

plan, and for the purpose of carrying the principle thereof into 
effect, the Legislature of this State passed, on the 2d of May, 
1834, an act entitled " An act to provide for supplying the 
city of New York with pure and wholesome water ;" and have 
subsequently enacted laws supplementary thereto. 

Your memorialists would, however, respectfully represent to 
your honorable bodies, that the commissioners appointed in 
pursuance of the acts aforesaid, have entered into contracts 
with sundry persons for the purpose of bringing the Crotou 
aqueduct over the Harlem river by means of a solid impassa- 
ble dam, which closes up the entire channel of the said river. 
They would here state, that the said river, at the place of the 
crossing of the said aqueduct, is 620 feet wide, and that the 
channel is 800 feet wide, and from 20 to 25 feet in depth ; that 
it is intended to divert the whole water of the said river from 
the channel thereof, and to cause it to flow through an arch- 
way 120 feet wide, and 65 feet high over the flats, where the 
water is only from 1 to 2 feet in depth at low water ; that the 
obstructions proposed to be placed in the said river would ut- 
terly destroy the navigation thereof, by the currents that will 
be created therein, and by the impossibility of the vessels, 
which would be usually employed thereon, and whose masts 
range from 80 to 100 feet in height, navigating the same. 

Your memorialists further represent, that the Harlem river 
is an arm of the sea, which was at all times navigable from 
the East river to an ancient public landing place of the town 
of Westchester, about a mile and a half above the proposed 
crossing of the Croton aqueduct, by sloops, schooners and 
other vessels, till the illegal obstruction of the same some years 
since, by a dam erected by one Robert Macomb, and that it is 
connected by means of the Spuytendevil creek, which is also 
a navigable stream, with the Hudson river ; that since the 
abatement of the said dam as a public nuisance, the said river 
has been used for the transportation of the various supplies 
required by the inhabitants on its borders, and for the sending 
to the city of New York the stone from the valuable quarries 
on the shores of the said river ; that during a portion of the 
last season, a steam-boat for the conveyance of passengers, 
regularly plied on the Harlem river, and which if hereafter 
continued, would be a source of great accommodation to your 
memorialists as well as to other inhabitants of Westchester, 
and of the northern parts of the city and county of New York. 

Your memorialists would here add, that for the purpose of 
more fully availing themselves of the advantages offered b}^ 
the navigation of the Harlem river, the inhabitants of the 
town of Westchester, in town meeting convened, have directed 



No. 190.] 



( 33 ) 



that Berrien'.s landini^, the puLlic landing place above men- 
tioned, should be improved, and have appropriated therefor the 
sum deemed necessary to construct the appropriate docks. 

Your memorialists would further represent, that they havf; 
ever looked to the progressive increase of the trade of the city 
of New York, and of the consequent demand of the shores of 
the Harlem rive'r for the accommodation of the navigation em- 
ployed therein, as a legitimate source of profit to the proprie- 
tors in the neighborhood of the said river, of which it is now 
proposed to deprive them, without making any compensation 
therefor. 

They would earnestly call the attention of your honorable 
bodies to the fact, that in the preservation of the Harlem river, 
for the purposes of navigation, the whole State, as well as the 
city of New York and your memorialists, is interested, inas- 
much as this river furnishes the only adequate accommodation 
for the lumber trade from the interior, and for the indefinite 
amount of tonnage from the lakes and canals, which the en- 
lightened system of internal improvements now in progress, 
will call into existence. 

Your memorialists would, therefore, pray for the passage of 
an act, defining and limiting the authority of the water com- 
missioners of the city of New York, so as to compel them to 
bring the aqueduct over the Harlem river, in the manner set 
forth in the report above referred to, that is to say, by a bridge 
of at least 126 feet in height, to the water line of the aqueduct, 
and having sufficient openings to admit the passage of vessels 
of the draft of water, w^hich the present channel of the said 
river will now permit to pass, or in such a manner as not to 
interfere with the navigation of the said river. 

And your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. 



Israel H. Watson, Supervisor, 
Peter Valentine, Trustee, 
Robert R. Morris, Trustee of 

the town of Westchester. 
Israel H. Watson, Trustee, 
L. (t. Morris, " 

Frederick Ryer, " 

Josiah Briggs, *' 

Robert Morris, 
Daniel Mapes, 
John Valentine, 
J. M. Conklin, 
James Corsa, 



John Butler, 
John Butler, Jr., 
William Archer, 
Charles Berrien, 
Matthias Warner, 
Augustus Van Cortlandt. 
Aaron Vark, 
Samp. Simson, 
Abm. Valentine, 
James Bashford, 
Osborn Sherwood, 
George B, Rockwell, 
Anthonv Archer, 



( 34 ) 



[Assembly 



Andrew Corsa, 
Nicholas Berrien, 
Jacob Berrien, 
Cornelius Berrien, 
Peter Lawrence, 
Christopher Walton, 
Isaac Poole, 
Josiah Valentine, 
H. H. Lawrence, 
Wm. Johnston, Jr. 
James Berrien, 
James Hart, 
John Schuyler, 



William W. Kerr, 
Garrey B. Norton, 
Joseph Moore, 
Thaddeus Rockwell, 
Jonathan Ward, 
Robert H. Ludlow, 
Obed S. Paddock, 
Francis Kain, 
John Townsend, 
Minott Mitchell, 
Stephen Ward, 
Amos F. Hatfield. 



IN CHANCERY: 



BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT. 



William Renwick, 
vs, 

Lewis G. Morris, Gouverneur Morris, 
Morris, Charles Henry Hall, William 
Beach, Lawrence Crane, Abel T. An- 
derson, Vine A, Starr, John Howard, 
George Danah, L. George, Dan'l Han- 
ington and James Clisby, impleaded 
with F. Clauvaw, Richard Riker, and 
James R. Whiting, 

/ 



The joint and several answer oi 



defendants to a bill of complaint of Wm, Renwick, complainant^ 

These defendants now and at all times hereafter saving and 
reserving to themselves all, and all manner of benefit and ad- 
vantages of exception to the manifold errors, uncertainties^ 
imperfections and insufficiencies in the said complainants, said 
Bill of Complaint contained, for answer thereunto, or unto so 
much and such parts thereof as they, these defendants, are ad- 
vised, is material for them to make answer unto, they, these 
defendants answering say, that they have no knowledge, 
neither have they been informed except by the complainant's 
Bill of Complaint, that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty 

3 



( 36 ) 

of the City of New York, on the 22d day of December, 1800, 
or on any other day or year by Indenture, a copy of which is 
annexed to said Bill of Complaint, or by any other Indenture 
for the consideration for that purpose, specified in said bill, or 
for any other, a different consideration granted ; bargained and 
released to Alexander Macomb — then of the City of New 
York — now deceased, his heirs and assigns forever of the pre- 
mises described and set forth in said Bill of Complaint, and 
in schedule A thereunto annexed, and said defendants neither 
admit or deny the same, but leave the complainant to make such 
proof thereof as he may be advised. And these defendants 
further answering say, they have no knowledge, neither have 
they been informed, except by the complainant's Bill of Com- 
plaint, that after the alleged execution of the deed or grant 
from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City of 
New York to the said Alexander Macomb, that he, the said 
Alexander, did at great or any other expense, cause to be 
erected a certain mill upon the said water lot. The defendants 
neither admit or deny the same, and leave the complainant to 
make such proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering admit, that there is a 
mill now erected upon the premises described in the said Bill 
of Complaint, and the schedule A thereunto annexed, but they 
are ignorant who erected or caused the same to be erected ; 
and they aver and charge that there is not and has not been 
for ten years past, any passage fifteen feet in widj;h through or 
by which boats or craft at any time could pass freely or with- 
out interruption. The said defendants further answering say, 
they have no knowledge, neither have they been informed, ex- 
cept by the complainant's Bill of Complaint, that said Alex- 
ander Macomb was indebted to Samuel Corp, John F. Ellis 
and Gabriel Shaw, then of the City of New York, in the sum 
of ten thousand dollars, or in any other sum, and that he with 
Jane his wife, on the 19th day of November, A. D. 1800, or on 
any other day or year, executed and delivered to the said Corp, 
Ellis and Shaw to secure the said sum $: 0,000, or any other 
sum, a mortgage upon the said premises described in said Bill 
of Complaint ; said defendants neither admit or deny the same, 
and leave the said complainant to make such proof thereof as 
he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering say, they have no know- 
ledge, neither have they been informed, except by the com- 
plainant's Bill of Complaint, that said Corp, Ellis and Shaw, 
on or about the year 1810, or at any other time, foreclosed the 
said mortgage ; and they neither admit or deny the same, and 



( 37 ) 

leave the said complainant to make such proof thereof as he 
may be advised. 

These defendants further answ^ering say, they have no know- 
ledge, neither have they been informed, except by the com- 
plainant's Bill of Complaint, of the proceedings in chancery 
mentioned in said bill, of the sale of the right, title and in- 
terest of the said Alexander Macomb and Jane his wife, to the 
said premises, of the purchase of the said premises by the 
said Robert Macomb ; of the conveyance of the said premises 
by Thomas Cooper, Esq., Master in Chancery, to the said 
Robert Macomb, of the said deed and the record thereof ; they 
neither admit or deny the same, and leave the said complainant 
to make such proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering admit, that they have 
been informed and believe that Robert Macomb was in the 
possession of the said mill and premises, claiming them to be 
his own. These defendants further answering say, they have 
no knowledge, neither have they been informed, except by 
complainant's Bill of Complaint, that Robert Macomb entered 
into possession of said premises by virtue of the Deed from 
Thomas Cooper, Master in Chancery ; they neither admit or 
deny the same, and leave the complainant to make proof thereof. 

The defendants further answering say, they have been ad- 
vised and believe and charge the truth to be that the said 
Robert Macomb and the said Alexander Macomb, or either of 
them, never had any legal title to or legal interest in the premi- 
vses upon which the said mill is erected, nor had the Mayor, 
Aldermen, and Commonalty any legal right or power to grant 
any such title. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and therefore admit that on the 8th day of 
April, 1813, the Legislature of the State of New York passed 
an Act entitled "An act authorizing a dam to be built across 
Harlem river," a copy of which is hereunto annexed marked 
A, which said act these defendants make a part of this their 
answer. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and admit that the Corporation of the City 
of New York did give their consent to the said Robert Macomb 
to build a dam across the Harlem river; these defendants hav- 
ing no knowledge or information of the extent, times and con- 
ditions of said grant or authority, leave the complainant to 
prove the same as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering say, they are informed 
and believe and admit that the said Robert Macomb proceeded 
to erect and did erect a dam across the Harlem river from 
Bussing's point to Divoe's point. 



( 38 ) 

These defendants further answering deny, that said dam was 
erected according to the provisions of the said act. These de- 
fendants deny that the said Robert, his executors, administra- 
tors or assigns, or any of them caused a lock to be built in 
said dam, or any gate, apron, or other contrivance so as to 
admit the passage of boats and vessels accustomed to navigate 
the said river, or that any such lock, gate, apron, or con- 
trivance has ever existed ; and they deny that said Robert 
Macomb, his executors, administrators or assigns, or any of 
them provided a suitable person to attend the same as is falsely 
stated and set forth in the complainant's Bill of Complaint. 
These defendants further answ^ering say, they have no know- 
ledge neither have they received any information, except by 
the complainant's Bill of Complaint, that the said mill so al- 
leged to have been erected by the said Alexander Macomb 
was greatly enhanced in value, and the water-power of said 
mill greatly increased by reason of the erection of said dam. 
They neither admit or deny the same, and leave the complain- 
ant to make proof thereof. 

These defendants further answering expressly charge the 
truth to be that the said mill and water-power have not been 
used as a mill, or for the purpose of a mill, or been in opera- 
tion for at least the last twelve years. These defendants fur- 
ther answering admit, that after its construction said dam was 
used as a bridge, which is the only use to which it has been 
appropriated for at least the last twelve years, and these said 
defendants further charge the truth to be that'said dam was 
built across a navigable river, and connects a public road in 
the county of New York, with the county of Westchester ; — 
and these said defendants charge the truth to be that about the 
time said dam was built, a road was opened leading from the 
said dam in the county of Westchester to the public road in 
said county, about three quarters of a mile from said dam, 
and that by means of the road so opened and of the bridge 
over said dam, the public road in the county of New York 
was connected with the public road in the county of West- 
chester ; — and these defendants further answering, are informed 
and believe and state the truth to be, that the said road so 
constructed was opened and made by private individuals, and 
that said road never has been recorded or sanctioned as a public 
road by the authorities of the town or county of W^estchester ; 
-and these defendants further answering say, that said Robert 
Macomb and his assigns, without any lawful grant or title, 
ihave claimed a toll for passing over said bridge from such as 
passed over said roads and crossed said river, and they submit 
upon these facts, which are all facts known to them, whether 



( 39 ) 

the said bridge be legally a public bridge or not. These de- 
fendants, further answering, say they have no knowledge, 
neither have they been informed, that said dam was originally 
intended to be used as a public bridge, and they leave the com- 
plainant to make proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants, further answering, say, if such was the 
original intention, that said Robert Macomb fraudulently con- 
cealed such intention. These defendants, further answering, 
deny that the use of the said dam for a bridge was one of the 
chief reasons for the passage of the said act, as is untruly 
stated in said Bill of Complaint ; but on the contrary, as these 
defendants have been informed, and believe and charge the 
truth to be, there is not and never has been any grant to, or 
rights, or authority, on the part of the said Robert Macomb, 
his heirs or assigns, or on the part of any other person or per- 
sons, to erect or keep a bridge across said dam, for his or their 
profit and benefit by way of toll, or by means of any toll to be 
taken therefor, or in relation thereto, or to the passage thereof. 
These defendants, further answering, admit the truth to be 
that by means of the bridge on said dam, the intercourse be- 
tween the city of New York and that part of the county of 
Westchester, which is nearer to Macomb's dam than to Kings- 
bridge and to Harlem, or to Coles' bridge, was greatly pro- 
moted, and an easy and convenient passage for the inhabitants 
of such part of Westchester county was procured. These de- 
fendants, further answering, say that such inhabitants are few 
in number, and that the distance of country thus connected is 
very limited, and that the main travel from the county of West- 
chester to and from the city of New York and through the 
county of Westchester is by Harlem or Coles' bridge, or by 
Kingsbridge. 

These defendants, further answering, expressly charge the 
truth to be that the said bridge has been in bad and dangerous 
order for many years, so much so that upon one occasion one 
of the reaches between the hutments fell in with cattle, and 
lately many horses have broken through with their feet, and 
the said bridge is so out of order by reason of decayed beams 
and decayed and worn out plank, as to cause it to be dangerous 
to cross the said bridge with horses and wagons. 

These defendants, further answering, say, they do not know 
and are not informed whether great tolls have been received 
from said bridge by the owners thereof, and leave the com- 
plainant to make proof thereof; but they deny that any grant 
of the franchise of taking toll upon or for crossing over the said 
bridge ever existed. 

These defendants, further answering, say, they have been 



( 40 ) 

informed by persons tending the bridge, and so believe the 
truth to be, that the tolls received did not pay for the trouble 
of attending the toll gate until lately and within the past year. 

These defendants, further answering, say, they have been 
informed and believe, and charge the truth to be, that the pre- 
tended owners of said dam and bridge have rented the same, 
together with the house and grounds attached thereto, at a 
small annual rent, and that the tenant thereof has received to 
his own use the tolls collected from said bridge. 

These defendants, further answering, say they have no know- 
ledge nor are they informed except by the Bill of Complaint 
of the said complainant, that the Mayor, Aldermen and Com- 
monalty of the City of New York, on the 6th of August, 1816, 
or on any other day or year, conveyed to Robert Macomb, his 
heirs and assigns, by deed, a copy of which is annexed to said 
bill and marked C, the premises for that purpose set forth and 
described in the complainant's Bill of Complaint, they neither 
admit or deny the same, and leave the complainant to make 
proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering, say they have no know- 
ledge, nor have they been informed, except by the complain- 
ant's Bill of Complaint, that on or about the thirteenth (13th) 
of March, 1818, James L. Bell, then Sheriff of the city and 
county of New York, by virtue of a writ of fieri facias, issued 
out of and under the seal of the Supreme Court of Judicature 
of the State of New York, upon a judgment recorded in said 
Court on the 28th day of October, 1817, by the President and 
Directors of the Manhattan Company against the said Robert 
Macomb, sold and struck off to Samuel Jones, junior, and Dan- 
iel D. Tompkins, they being the highest bidders for the same ; 
they neither admit or deny the same, and leave the complainant 
to make such proof thereof as he may be advised to make. 

These defendants further answering, say they have no know- 
ledge, neither have they been informed, except by complainant's 
Bill of Complaint, that complainant had become lawfully pos- 
sessed by assignment of the rights acquired by said bidders, 
and that the said premises were on the 9th day of March, 1831, 
conveyed by Elisha W. King and Oliver M. Lownders, the ex- 
ecutors of the last Will and Testament of the said James L. 
Bell to the complainant as per covenant, a copy of which is an- 
nexed to complainant's Bill of Complaint marked D ; they nei- 
ther admit or deny the same, and leave the complainant to 
make proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and admit that James L. Bell, previously 
to the 9th day of March, 1831, departed this life. 



( 41 ) 

These defendants further answering say, they have no know- 
ledge or information, except by complainant's Bill of Com- 
plaint, that said Bell made a last Will and Testament ; that 
he appointed Elisha W. King and Oliver M. Lownders his ex- 
ecutors ; or that said Elisha and Oliver were duly appointed 
executors by the surrogate of the city and county of New 
York ; they neither admit or deny the same, and leave the 
complainant to make proof thereof as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and charge the truth to be that one Duncan 
P. Campbell is now litigating with the said complainant the 
title to the said dam and appurtenances. 

These defendants further answering say, they are advised 
and believe and so charge the truth to be, that said complain- 
ant hath no legal title to said dam and appurtenances, and 
leaves the complainant to make proof of his title to said prem- 
ises as he may be advised. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and therefore admit, that said complainant 
has by his tenants been in the possession of the said dam and 
bridge, so far as taking tolls and maintaining a toll gate for 
crossing said bridge constitute such possession. 

These defendants expressly charge the truth to be, that the 
said mill has for at least the last twelve years been vacant, 
unoccupied, and for that time and for no time therein has been 
in the actual possession of the said complainant, nor has it 
been in the actual possession of any one. 

These defendants further answering say, they have no know- 
ledge nor are they so informed, except by the complainant's 
Bill of Complaint, and they do not believe, and therefore deny 
that the said complainant has received great tolls for passing 
over the said bridge, and they submit that he is not in law en- 
titled to any tolls for the crossing of the bridge. 

These defendants further answering say, it is true and they 
therefore admit, that for several years past and for at least ten 
years last past, the gates of the said dam have been taken oif ; 
but they deny that thereby a free and uninterrupted passage 
under the arches of the said dam hath been left for boats and 
vessels accustomed to navigate said river. 

These defendants deny that there are any arches in said 
dam, but aver that said dam is constructed as is hereinafter 
specified. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that the Harlem river is a navigable river — an arm of the sea — 
running from the East river, between the Island of New York 
and Barn and Randell Islands, and between the counties of 



( 42 ) 

Westchester and New York, until it intersects a branch of th^ 
Spuyten Duyvel creek about six miles from the mouth of the 
Harlem river ; that the tide ebbs and flows the whole course 
of said river ; that the usual rise of the tide is from four to six 
feet ; that said Harlem river varies in width from its mouth to 
its junction as above stated, from half a mile to 300 feet ; and 
its depth from its mouth to said junction varies from 13 fathoms 
to 1^ fathoms at low tide, the shallowest part being at the 
junction of the said river with Spuyten Duyvel creek ; that 
the dam erected by Robert Macomb and claimed 

by the said complainant, is about three miles below where said 
river intersects Spuyten Duyvel creek, and 2| miles below an 
ancient public landing-place for unloading vessels in Westches- 
ter county, called Berrien's landing, and the depth of the river 
above said dam varies from 3 fathoms to IJ fathom at low 
water. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and charge the truth to be, that before and 
until the time when the said dam was so erected by the said 
Robert Macomb, the said Harlem river was navigated by sloops, 
schooners and pettiaugers of the size, tonnage and description 
of sloops, schooners and pettiaugers at that time navigating 
the North river ; and that such sloops, schooners and petti- 
augers navigated the whole distance of said Harlem river from 
its mouth at the East river past the place where the said dam 
is erected to the farmers' bridge at or near the junction of said 
river with Spuyten Duyvel creek. 

And these defendants further answering say, they are in- 
formed and believe and charge the truth to be, that before the 
said dam was erected the vessels accustomed to navigate the 
said river, were sloops, schooners and pettiaugers of the des- 
cription herein before mentioned. 

And these defendants further answering say, they are in- 
formed and believe and charge the truth to be, that before 
the said dam was erected, the flats in said river above said dam 
annually produced great quantities of sedge valuable to the 
owners of premises adjoining. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that the said dam erected by the said Robert Macomb, is 
built across the channel of said river, which said channel is 
300 feet wide and from 3 to 4 fathoms deep ; that said dam is 
built with fine stone piers from 35 to 38 feet distant from each 
other ; each pier about twenty feet square, and the top of said 
piers are about ten feet above low water line ; that the whole 
distance across said river, between said piers is filled in with 
stone up to low water mark ; there is constructed in said dam, 



( 43 ) 

no gate, lock, draw-apron or other contrivance to admit the 
passage of boats and vessels accustomed to navigate said 
stream at the time said dam was built. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to 
be, that said dam is so constructed as to force and cause 
the water of said river to rise and overflow the salt mea- 
dows and other grounds lying between the said dam and 
King's Bridge, and cause the tide and water to continue and 
remain on said meadows and grounds longer than the same 
would otherwise have done. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to 
be, that all times of tide, except high and low water, the 
water passes between said piers with so great a 

torrent, that vessels or boats could not stem the same even 
were they not obstructed by the stone so thrown into the 
channel as aforesaid or by the bridge hereinafter described. 

These defendants further answering say, there is no arch- 
way to said dam, and charge the truth to be, that a bridge 
is built across said dam by laying timbers to reach from pier 
to pier, and upon these timbers are laid plank, so that between 
the piers the bridge is about 10 feet above low water line, 
and is without any draw and has been so for many years. 

These defendants further answering say, that the meadows 
and grounds above the dam are damaged and injured by the 
said dam, and the said Robert Macomb, his heirs and assigns 
have never made whole the parties injured, for the loss and 
damage sustained as aforesaid, nor made to them any com- 
pensation in this behalf. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that the said Robert Macomb or his assigns have not, for at 
least 12 years past, provided a suitable person to attend a 
lock in said dam, but on the contrary, there has been no lock, 
draw or passage-way, nor any person to attend the same. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been in- 
formed and believe and charge the truth to be, that when the 
said Robert Macomb erected the said dam, he built across said 
dam on the Westchester side a contrivance of six feet ten in- 
ches wide at one end, and seven feet wide at the other, which 
said contrivance was subsequently and for more than twelve 
years since filled in with stone by the said Robert Macomb, 
and has so continued ever since, and is wholly impassable, 
and there is no other lock, draw, apron or contrivance for a 
free passage. 

These defendants further answering say, they have been 
informed and believe that immediately after said contrivance 
was finished, a market boat was presented with her produce 



( 44 ) 

to pass said contrivance, and that after being detained 
for some several hours, they succeeded in passing through said 
contrivance ; that ever after when said boat or others went to 
New York with produce, they were obliged to and did un- 
load said boats above the dam and hauled them over the 
bridge and again loaded them. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that by reason of the said dam as actually erected and sub- 
sequently maintained, the usual and ordinary navigation of 
said river, as before used, was entirely destroyed. 

These defendants further answering say, that after the gates 
were taken off of said dam, in certain stages of the tide, per- 
sons in boats did pass under said bridge and above the dam ; 
but these defendants expressly charge the truth to be, that 
such passage was always attended with great danger, and 
they are informed and believe and so charge the truth to 
be, that several human lives have been lost, and upon different 
occasions in attempting to make such passages under the 
bridge and over said dam, and there hath been no passage for 
vessels other than small undecked boats or skiffs. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that said dam was not so constructed as to cause the water to 
flow freely off, but on the contrary thereof it caused the water 
to overflow lands which were not before overflowed and des- 
troyed the sedge which before grew on the said flats. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
and aver that said dam is a common nuisance, and they sub- 
mit that it is just and legal as these defendants have been in- 
formed and believe, for any person injured or incommoded by 
said nuisance to abate the same. 

These defendants further answering charge the truth to be, 
that the defendants Charles Henry Hall, Lewis Morris, Lewis 
G. Morris and William H. Morris, occupy lands running down 
to and bounded by said Harlem river, that the lands occupied 
by said Lewis, Lewis G. and William H. are in the county of 
Westchester, and those by the said Charles H. in the county 
of New York. 

These defendants further say that the obstruction of the 
navigation of the said river is of great pecuniary detriment to 
the said last mentioned defendants, and otherwise of great in- 
convenience to them by obstructing the passage of boats and 
vessels bringing manure and produce along the side river. 

These defendants further answering say, the said Lewis G. 
Morris of his own knowledge, and the said other defendants 
upon the information of said Lewis G., which information they 
believe to be true, that before taking down part of the bridge 



( 45 ) 

and dam hereinafter mentioned, he, the said Lewis G. Morris 
frequently applied at the said dam to pass said dam with a 
small sail boat and with a sloop, the boat and sloop being of a 
class of vessels smaller than those of the description which, 
before said dam was erected, usually navigated said river ; and 
that he, the said Lewis G. Morris was answered by the keeper 
of said bridge that there was no means to pass said dam, and 
that he, said Lewis G. knew there was none. 

These defendants further answering say, the said Lewis G. 
Morris from his own knowledge and the other defendants from 
information derived from said Lewis G. Morris, which informa- 
tion they believe to be true, that said Lewis G. Morris caused 
application to be made to the complainant, desiring that he, 
said complainant would cause a draw to be made in said dam 
and bridge to pass vessels usually navigating said river before 
said dam was erected; to which said complainant in substance 
replied that he would not make a draw in said dam and bridge, 
that he intended to make a rail-way over said bridge to pass 
over small skiffs from the one side of the dam to the other, 
and that he would make no other lock or passage, neither 
would he permit any person to make any other lock or passage, 
and that he had plenty of money to spend in law with any 
person who should attempt to make any other lock or passage 
through said dam and bridge, and he would spend money in 
law with any such person. 

These defendants further answering 



upon their own knowledge, and the said 



upon the information and belief say, that after passage through 
said dam. with boats and vessels usually navigating said river 
before said dam was erected had been refused, an 1 after said 
complainant had so refused, as aforesaid, to make a lock or 
draw through said dam for the passage of vessels usually navi- 
gating said river before said dam was erected, and after he had 
so declared he would not permit any other person to make a 
draw through said dam and bridge, and after the said defen- 
dants had advised with counsel learned in the law upon the 
subject, and received advice that said dam being a public 



( 46 ) 

nuisance, any person might legally abate it. A citizen of the 
State of New Jersey with a vessel of the smaller size of ves- 
sels accustomed to navigate said river before said dam was 
erected, with coal to be delivered to the defendant Lewis G. 
Morris for the use of his dwelling, at a dock above said dam, 
came up said river for the purpose of delivering said coal, that 
these defendants, 



to enable the said vessel to pass through said dam and bridge, 
did in pursuance of such advice so received from their said 
counsel, on the night of the 14th September quietly and in a 
peaceable manner commence taking down a part of said dam 
and bridge, and did take up sufficient thereof to let said vessel 
pass through, and said vessel did pass through. 

That these defendants commenced taking said bridge and 
dam down at night in order to avoid collecting idle specta- 
tors, and to avoid any illegal interference with the just and 
legal proceedings of the said defendants, to remove the said 
public nuisance. 

And these defendants further answering admit, that on the 
21st, 22d and 24th days of September last past, the defendants 



under the em- 
ployment and directions of the said defendant Lewis G. 
Morris, continued to work at taking up the said bridge and 
dam for the purpose of enabling boats and vessels of the des- 
cription of those which usually navigated said river before said 
dam was erected, to pass through said dam and to restore the 
navigation of said river, and to reduce the waters of said river 
to their natural state. 

These defendants further answering say, at the time the in- 
junction issued in this cause was served upon them, they had 
only succeeded in taking out stone sufficient to deepen the 
passage therein to the depth of four and a half feet water 
through said dam at high water, which is not sufficient to en- 
able vessels of the description that navigated said river before 
said dam was erected, to pass the same, and is insufficient to 
destroy the strong current which obstructs the navigation. 



' ( 47 ) 

These defendants further answering say, that in removing 
said nuisance these defendants were not actuated by any in- 
tention to injure the said complainant or any other person, but 
intended only to abate said nuisance. 

And these defendants further answering, expressly deny that 
they did or intended to take down any more of said dam and 
bridge than was necessary to abate the nuisance and to insure 
the free passage of boats and vessels, of the description of ves- 
sels that usually navigated said river before the said dam was 
erected, and to give a free passage of the waters so as to break 
the strong torrent which said dam occasioned. 

These defendants further answering say, that they have no 
recollection of saying that the said complainant had no pro- 
perty in said dam, and they therefore neither admit or deny the 
same, but leave the complainant to make such proof thereof as 
he may be advised. 

These defendants admit that they have said that said dam 
was a public nuisance, and that they would abate it. These 
defendants have no knowledge neither have they been informed, 
except by the complainant's Bill of Complaint, which informa- 
tion they do not believe, and they therefore deny that com- 
plainant had made a contract with a certain Eden S. Webster 
to rent said mill to the said Eden for four years, at $1800 per 
annum, and leave complainant to prove the same. 

These defendants have no knowledge and have not been in- 
formed, except by complainant's Bill of Complaint, which they 
don't believe, and they therefore deny the same, that said 
complainant has been prevented renting his said mill by means 
of these defendants having said said dam is a nuisance, and 
that these defendants would abate the same, and they leave 
complainant to make proof thereof. 

These defendants say, it is untrue that Richard F. Carman 
and James R. Whiting had anything to do with taking away 
said nuisance, or that they or either of them consented or 
knew that it was to be done, or advised it to be done. 

These defendants further answering state the truth to be, 
that Spuyten Duyvel creek runs from its junction with Har- 
lem river near King's bridge to the Hudson river ; that said 
creek, as defendants have been informed and believe, before 
the erection of the said mill by the said Alexander Macomb, 
stated in complainant's Bill of Complaint, was navigated 
with sloops and smaller vessels from Hudson river up to King's 
bridge, and it is now navigated by such vessels up to said 
mill. 

These defendants further answering say, that the tide ebbs 
and flows in said Spuyten Duyvel creek up to King's bridge 
and beyond it into the Harlem river. 



( 48 ) 

And these defendants further answering say, that sa'd mill 
30 erected by the said Alexander Macomb is built nearly 
across said creek, and stops the present navigation of the 
same, contrary to his grant and covenant. 

These defendants further answering say, there is not nor 
has there been a passage or way along the course of said 
creek fifteen feet wide, kept clear, open, and unencumbered, 
so that all small boats and crafts can freely and without ob- 
struction pass and repass the same. 

These defendants further answering say, they are informed 
and believe- and charge the truth to be, that said Robert 
Macomb, his heirs or assigns, had no right or authority to 
erect, nor has the said complainant any right or authority to 
continue said dam across Harlem river ; that said Alexander 
Macomb, his heirs and assigns, had no right or authority to 
erect, nor has said complainant right or authority to con- 
tinue said mill across said Spuyten Duyvel creek. 

These defendants further answering say, they are advised 
and believe and declare the truth to be, that the Corporation 
of the City of New York had no authority or right to grant 
to the said Robert Macomb any power or authority to erect 
said dam across said Harlem river ; nor had the said Corpora- 
tion the authority or right to grant to the said Alexander 
Macomb the power or authority to obstruct and destroy the 
navigation of Spuyten Duyvel creek. 

And these defendants further answering declare the truth to 
be, that said Harlem river is a navigable river, an arm of the 
sea, a public high-way, and they are advised and believe and 
charge the truth to be, that the Legislature of the State of 
New York has no power or authority to obstruct the same, 
or to grant to others ; and they submit and insist that by the 
acts of the Legislature in this behalf, the State of New York 
hath not intended so to do, nor hath it done the same. 

And these defendants submit and aver, that except in the 
interruption of tolls demanded and taken without legal grant, 
the complainant hath not sustained any immediate or other 
damage, as his dam hath long since ceased to be used for any 
purpose connected with any mill, whereas some of these de- 
fendants in the obstruction of the navigation of the said river, 
and the easy, cheap and convenient transportation of manure, 
fuel and produce on the same, are sustaining daily and con- 
stant damage. 

And these defendants deny all and all manner of unlawful 
confederation and conspiracy charged in the said bill, without 
that, that any other matter or thing not herein and hereby 
well and sufficiently answered or avoided, confessed or denied, 
is true. 



( 49 ) 

All which matter and things these defendants are ready to 
aver, prove and maintain, and humbly pray to be hence dis- 
missed with their reasonable costs and charges in this behalf 
most wrongfully sustained. 



State of New York, 
City and County of New York, 



ss. 



On this 15th day of October, A. D., 1838, before me per- 
sonally appeared Lewis G. Morris, one of the above named 
defendants, who being by me duly sworn, deposed and said, 
that he has heard read the foregoing answer and knows the 
contents thereof ; that the same is true of his own knowledge, 
except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on his 
information or belief, and as to those matters he believes it to 
be true. 



State of New York, 
City and County of New York, 

On this 15th day of October, A. D., 1838, before me per- 
sonally appeared Gouverneur Morris, one of the above named 
defendants, who being by me duly sworn, deposed and said, 
that he has heard read the foregoing answer and knows the 
contents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, 
except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on his 
information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to 
be true. 



State of New York, ) 

1 ss 
County of Westchester, ) 

On this 16th day of October, A. D., 1838, before me per- 
sonally appeared Joseph Crane, Vine A, Starr, William H- 
Morris, Stephen L. George, Lewis Morris, defendants in the 



( 50 ) 

above cause, each and every of whom being by me duly sworn, 
did depose and say, that he had heard read the foregoing an- 
swer and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of 
his own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein 
stated to be on his information or belief, and as to those mat- 
ters he believes it to be true. 



State of New York, 
City and County of New York, 



ss. 



On this 17th day of October, before me appeared personally 
James Clisby, George Danah, defendants in the above suit, 
each of whom being by me duly sw^orn, did depose and say, 
that he had heard read the foregoing answer and knows the 
contents thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, 
except as to the matters which are therein stated to be on his 
information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to 
be true. 



SCHEDULE A, TO ANSWER. 

An act authorizing a dam to be built across Harlem river ; 
passed April 8th, 1813. 

I. Be it enacted by the people of the State of New York, 
represented in Senate and Assembly, that it shall and may be 
lawful for Robert Macomb, of the City of New York, his heirs 
and assigns, first obtaining the consent of the Mayor, Alder- 
men, and Commonalty of the City of New York thereto, to 
build, construct, make and maintain a dam across the Harlem 
river, from Bussing's point in the Ninth Ward of the said City, 
to Devoe's point in the town of Westchester, in the county of 
Westchester, which said dam may be constructed with a foun- 
dation and abutments of stone and earth, or other durable ma- 
terials, leaving in the centre or other part thereof a sufficient 
space for the water to pass freely through, on which space 
may be constructed flood gates or other contrivances needful 
to contain the waters of said river, so however that such dam 



( r>l ) 

shall not be built, constructed or made at or below the place 
where the bridge authorized to be erected and built by the 
Harlem Bridge Company, from Bussing's point aforesaid to 
Devoe's point aforesaid, shall be erected and built without the 
consent of the said company ; provided always, that the said 
dam shall not be so constructed as to force or cause the water 
of the said river to rise and overflow the salt meadows or 
other grounds lying between the said dam and King's bridge, 
or any part thereof, or cause the tide or other water to con- 
tinue or remain on said meadows or grounds longer than the 
same otherwise would have done ; and provided further, that 
if any damage or injury whatever shall accrue to the mea- 
dows or other grounds aforesaid in consequence of the build- 
ing of said dam, the said Robert Macomb, his heirs and as- 
signs, shall indemnify and make whole the party or parties 
injured, for the loss or damage sustained by him or them as 
aforesaid. 

II. And be it further enacted, that the said dam shall be so 
made and built as to admit the passage of boats and vessels 
accustomed to navigate the same, by means of a good and suf- 
ficient gate, lock, apron, or other contrivance ; and the said 
Robert Macomb, his heirs and assigns, at his or their own ex- 
pense, shall keep and provide a suitable person to attend the 
same, so that no unnecessary delay may happen to those who 
may have occasion to pass the same with boats or vessels as 
aforesaid. 

III. And be it further enacted, that the said Robert Macomb, 
his heirs and assigns, at his or their own expense, shall at 
all times keep in good and sufficient repair the said dam, 
and in case the said gate, lock or other contrivance whereby 
or through which boats are to pass, as aforesaid, shall not be 
kept in sufficient repair and condition, or if the said Robert 
Macomb, his heirs and assigns, do not at all times keep a suita- 
ble person to attend the same, or if any delay should happen 
to any person who may have occasion to pass the same with 
boats or vessels as aforesaid, through the default of the said 
Robert Macomb, his heirs or assigns, or their agents, or servants, 
he or they shall forfeit for every neglect the sum of five dol- 
lars, to be recovered with costs of suit by the party injured. 

IV. And be it further enacted, that the said Robert Macomb, 
his heirs and assigns, forever, shall hold, have and enjoy the 
sole right and privilege of using and employing the waters so 
dammed for milling and other purposes ; provided that the 

4 



( 52 ) 

assent of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the City 
of New York to the building and constructing the said dam, 
hereinbefore mentioned, as herein aforesaid, be first obtained 
by the said Robert Macomb, his heirs or assigns, before he or 
they shall be authorized to build or construct the same ; pro- 
vided also that nothing in this act contained shall be construed 
to affect, injure or impair any rights, property, or privileges 
which may be now vested by law and subsisting in John B. 
Coles, or any person or persons claiming under him, or in the 
Harlem Bridge Company. 



IN CHANCERY: 

BEFORE THE VICE CHANCELLOR, 



William Renwick, 



vs. 



Lewis Morris ^ al. 



COPT ORDER. 



D. E. WHEELER, 

SoFr. 



At a Court of Chancery held for the State of 
New York, at the City of New York, on 
the twentieth day of December, one thou- 
sand eight hundred and thirty-eight :• 
Present, 

William T. McCoun, Vice Chancellor of the First Circuit. 



William Renwick, 



vs. 



Lewis G. Morris ^ al. 



Motion having been made on the part of Lewis Morris, 
Lewis G. Morris, Gouverneur Morris, William H. Morris, Jo- 
seph Crane, Vine A. Starr, George Darrah, and James Clisby, 
eight of the defendants in the above cause, upon the com- 



( 54 ) 

plainant's Bill and Replication, and the answer of the said de- 
fendants for the dissolution of the injunction granted in this 
cause, or for such other or further order as should be deemed 
just ; and Counsel having been heard on the part of the com- 
plainant and the said defendants, it is ordered and adjudged 
that said injunction be modified ; and it is hereby modified in 
such manner as not to enjoin or restrain the defendants in 
said cause, their counsellors, solicitors, attorneys, servants, 
and agents, them and each of them, from removing the stone 
in the Harlem river, between two of the piers or abutments of 
the bridge or dam mentioned in said injunction, where the 
plank of the bridge have been already removed, to the width 
of 38 feet, so as to admit the free passage of vessels, boats, 
and other craft through said bridge or dam. 

(Copy.) 

JOHN WALWORTH, 

Clerk. 



HARLEM RIVER CANAL COMPANY. 



1836. 



AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE HARLEM RIVER CANAL COMPANY 
Passed April 16Tn, 1827. 
WITH AN AMENDMENT, PASSED MAY 13th, 1S36. 



Be it enacted hy the People of the State of New York, repi'S' 
sented in Senate and Assembly : 

1 . That Peter Embury, Richard Riker, and such other per- 
sons as now are, or hereafter may he associated with them, be, 
and they hereby are constituted and created a body corporate 
and politic, in fact and in name, by the name of " the Harlem 
River Canal Company," and by that name, they and their suc- 
cessors and assigns shall and may have continual succession, 
and may sue and be sued, defend and be defended, in all man- 
ner of suits and actions, in all courts and places whatsoever, 
and that they and their successors may have a common seal, 
and may change and alter the same at pleasure ; and also, that 
they and their successors, by the same name and style, shall 
be in law capable of purchasing, holding and conveying any 
estate, real or personal, for the use of the said corporation : 
Provided, That the real estate so to be holden, shall be such 
as the said company shall purchase and obtain by voluntary 
transfer, to be used in and about the construction of the said 
canal, and the works connected therewith. 

2. And he it further enacted, That the stock, property and 
affairs of the said corporation shall be managed by thirteen 
directors, to be elected from the stockholders, (one of whom 
to be president) who shall hold their offices for one year, and 
until others shall be elected in their stead ; and that the direc- 
tors of the said company, after the term of the first board 
thereof shall have expired, shall be elected on the fourth Mon- 
day of April in each and every year, at such time of the day, 
and at such place, as the directors for the time being may ap- 
point ; and public notice shall be given by the said directors, 



( 56 ) 

not less than fourteen days previous to the time of holding the 
said election, in at least two of the public newspapers printed 
in the city of New York ; and the said election shall be held 
under the inspection of three stockholders, not being directors, 
to be appointed by the board of directors ; and such election 
shall be by ballot, and by a plurality of votes of the stock- 
holders present, or their proxies, allowing one vote for every 
share of stock ; and if it shall happen at any election that two 
or more persons have an equal number of votes, so that no 
choice shall have been made as to such person or persons, then 
the said stockholders, herein before authorized to vote at such 
election, shall proceed by ballot a second time, and by a plu- 
rality of votes determine which of the said persons so having 
an equal number of votes, shall be the director or directors, so 
as to complete the whole number of twelve ; and the said di- 
rectors, as soon as may be aftet the election, shall proceed to 
elect by ballot one of their number, to be their President ; and 
if any vacancy shall be occasioned in the board, by resigna- 
tion, death, or otherwise, the same shall be filled for the re- 
mainder of the year in which it may happen, by such person 
or persons as the remainder of the directors for the time being, 
or the major part of them, shall appoint ; that Richard Riker, 
Benjamin Bailey, Elisha W. King, Charles H. Hall, John 
Watts, William R. Smith, Alexander Hamilton, William P. 
Hawes, Henry D. Sewall, William S, Smith, Stephen Richards, 
Aaron Sergeant, and William W, Todd, shall be the first di- 
rectors, and shall hold their offices until the fourth Monday of 
April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
twenty-eight, and until others shall be chosen ; and that the 
major part of said directors shall form a board for the transac- 
tion of business. 

3. And be it further enacted, That if at any time it should 
happen, that an election of directors should not be made on 
the day when, pursuant to this act, it ought to have been made, 
the said corporation shall not for that cause, or for any non- 
user, be deemed to be dissolved, but that it shall and may be 
lawful, on any other day, to hold an election of directors. 

4. And he it further enacted, That the said corporation 
shall have full right, power and authority to cut, construct and 
make a canal, in the twelfth ward of the city of New York, 
from Spitendeuvel creek to Harlem river, from and to such 
points and places as the said directors shall deem most expe- 
dient and advantageous ; and such number of basins, con- 
nected therewith, as may be necessary ; and to improve the 



( 57 ) 

navigation of Harlem river, so as to afford to vessels, boats 
and other freighting craft, which shall traverse the land, canal 
and river, a secure and easy navigation from the said Spiten- 
deuvel creek to and along the Harlem river into the East river ; 
and it shall also be lavi^ful for the said corporation to invest such 
sums as they may deem expedient, in the building, purchase 
and employment of steam or other freighting boats, to be used 
in navigating the said canal and Harlem river, and the w^aters 
adjacent, and therewith connected ; and also to purchase, build 
or hire houses, factories, ware-houses, wharves and other ne- 
cessary buildings for the use of said corporation, and to sell or 
lease the whole or any part of the above mentioned property 
as they may think conducive to the interests of the said incor- 
poration ; Provided, That the said company shall not take any 
land against the consent of the owner or owners, and shall not 
l)reak ground in the excavation of the said canal or canals, or 
basins, withont the approbation of the corporation of the city 
of New York, first had and obtained under their corporate 
seal. 

5. And. he it further enacted, That the capital stock of the 
said company shall be five hundred thousand dollars, to be 
divided into shares of fifty dollars each ; and that it shall 
be lawful for the directors to call and demand from the stock- 
holders respectively, all such sums of money by them sub- 
scribed, at such time and in such proportion, as they shall 
see fit ; and that Richard Riker, Elisha W. King and Charles 
H. Hall shall be commissioners, for opening books and re- 
ceiving subscriptions to said stock ; and shall give thirty days 
notice of the time and place of holding such subscription ; 
and that in case of the death or refusal to act, of any or 
either of the said commissioners, that the directors for the 
time being, shall and may appoint any one or more persons, 
as commissioners to supply the vacancy or vacancies occa- 
sioned by such death or refusal to act as aforesaid ; and that 
if any stockholder or stockholders, so subscribing, shall ne- 
glect to make such payment as the said directors, on public 
notice of thirty days, may call for and demand, for ten days 
after the same ought to have been paid, the shares of the said 
stockholders, so neglecting, and all previous payments by them 
made, may be forfeited to the use and benefit of the said cor- 
poration hereby created. 

6. And he it further enacted. That the directors for the 
time being, shall have power to make such by-laws, rules and 
regulations as shall appear needful and proper, touching the 



( 58 .) 

management and disposition of the stock, property, estate and 
effects of the said corporation, the rate and manner of collect- 
ing tolls and fares, with power to appoint such and so many 
officers, clerks and servants for carrying on the business of the 
said corporation, and such allowances and salaries as to them 
shall seem meet and proper. 

7. And he it further enacted, That if any person or persons 
shall wilfully do or cause to be done any act whatsoever, 
whereby the said canal, basins and works, or any matter 
or thing appertaining to the same, shall be impaired or in- 
jured, the person or persons so offending shall forfeit and pay 
to the said company treble the amount of damages sustained 
by means of such offence or injury, to be recovered by said 
company, with costs of suit, and by action of debt, in the 
supreme court of judicature of this State, which action shall, 
in every instance, be considered transitory in its nature, and 
may be triable in any county of this Stale. 

8. And he it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful 
for the said corporation to employ any part of its capital in 
banking, nor shall it issue any bond, bill, note of credit, 
ckeck, draft, or other obligation for the purpose of loaning 
the same; nor shall it use any power not expressly granted 
by this act, or any power not necessary to effect the object 
of the incorporation; and that any violation of this section 
shall be deemed a forfeiture of the privileges and rights of 
such corporation. 

9. And he it further enacted. That the stock of said cor- 
poration shall be deemed and considered personal estate, and 
shall be assignable and transferable, and that no transfer of 
such stock shall be valid until the same shall have been duly 
assigned and transferred in and upon a book to be kept for 
that purpose, by the president of said corporation, which 
book shall be closed ten days previous to every election, and 
no transfer of stock shall entitle the person to Selection, unless 
the same shall have been transferred at least ten days pre- 
vious to any such election. 

10. And he it further enacted, That this act shall be 
deemed &■ public act ; and shall be benignly and favorably con- 

■struedfor isll the purposes therein declared and expressed, in 
;^11 coii-ytis and places whatsoever. 

iM. And he it further enacted. That the term of two years 
from the passing of this act be, and it is hereby allowed for 



( 59 ) 

constructing said canal, and no more ; and should said canal 
not be made within said period, tlien this act shall be deemed 
to have expired, and to be void to all intents and purposes. 

12. And be it further enacted, That the stockholders shall 
jointly and severally be liable for the debts and demands 
against the said company, to the amount of the stock held by 
each stockholder ; Provided, That no suit shall be brought 
against any stockholder or stockholders until 30 days after 
such debt or demand shall have been demanded from the said 
corporation. 

13. And he it further enacted. That the Legislature may 
at any time, alter or amend this act. 



AN ACT 

TO AMEND A^fD EXTEND THE ACT ENTITLED 

" AN ACT TO INCORPORATE THE HARLEM RIYER CANAL COMPANY. 

PASSED APRIL ICiH, 1S27. 



Passed May 13th, 1836. 

The People of the State of Neiv Yoidc represented in Senate 
and Assembly , do enact as follows : 

§ 1, The act entitled "An act to incorporate the Harlem 
River Canal Company," passed 16th April, 1827, is hereby 
revived and continued and the time limited by said act for con- 
structing said canal shall be extended to the term of five year.< 
from the passing of this act. 

^ 2. Charles Henry Hall, Francis Fickett, Richard Riker, 
William Beach Lawrence, Lewis Morris, James R. Whiting, 
J. Green Pearson, Isaac Adriance, Jonathan B. Hall, Joseph 
G.Swift, Benson McGowan, Benjamin F. Carman, and Joseph 
E. Bloomfield, shall be the first directors, and shall hold their 
offices until the fourth Monday in April one thousand eight 
hundred and thirty-seven, and until others shall be chosen. 

^ 3. The company are hereby authorized to extend their 
capital to the sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand 
dollars. 



( 60 ) 

^ 4. Section twelfth of the former act is hereby repealed ; 
but the said corporation shall not purchase, hold, or possess 
docks, wharves, ware-houses, or any other real estate exceed- 
ing in amount the sum of two hundred thousand dollars. 

§ 5. Every thing in the act hereby revived, inconsistent 
with the provisions of this act, is hereby repealed. 

^ 6. But persons residing upon, or owning lands bounded 
upon Harlem river, or Spitendeuvel creek, shall at all times 
have the liberty of passing through the locks or works of said 
company, with their ordinary farm boats, to and from New 
York market, or pleasure boats, free from toll or other 
charges. 

^ 7. This corporation shall continue for fifty years, and the 
Legislature may at any time alter and amend this act. 

State of New York, \ 
Secretary's Office. j 

I have compared the preceding with an original act of the 
Legislature on file in this office, and do certify that the same 
is a correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of said 
original. 

ARCH'D CAMPBELL, 

Deputy Secretary. 
Albany, May 13, 1836. 



REPORT 

OF THE 

SPEOIA.L com:]viittee, 

ON THE 

PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS 

RELATIVE TO BUILDING A 

BRIDGE TO SUPPORT IRON PIPES 

ACROSS HAELEM EIYER. 



PRESENTED BY A. T. ANDERSON, 



CHAIRMAN. 

3' 



V '..^ 



* _ ■ >. 

LAID ON THE TABLE, AND FOUR TIMES THE USUAL NUMBER 
ORDERED PRINTED, 



DOCUMENT No. 7. 



BOARD OF ASSISTANT ALDERMEN. 



NOVEMBER 26th, 1839. 



Report of the Special Committee, on the Preamble and Re- 
solutions relative to building a bridge to support iron pipes 
across Harlem river. Presented by A. T. Anderson,, chairman. 
Laid on the table, and four times the usual number ordered 
printed. 

J. Newhouse, Clerk. 



The Special Committee, to whom was referred the annexed 
preamble and resolutions, relative to crossing Harlem river 
by a bridge to support iron pipes, heg leave 

Respectfully to Report, — 

That a collision with the Water Commissioners would be a 
matter of much and serious regret, and as the preamble and 
resolutions evidently contemplate such a result, your Com- 
mittee have examined the subject with no little anxiety. 

To the Water Commissioners your Committee cannot as- 
cribe any other motive, in the contemplated erection of the 
low bridge, than an honest desire to procure for the City a 
supply of pure and wholesome water, upon terms most bene- 
ficial to the public, and in the opinion of your Committee, 
they deserve the best thanks of the community for the zeal, 
energy, and skill with which they have thus far prosecuted the 
work. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that elevated 
conceptions of the grandeur of the enterprise, and a noble 
anxiety to carry it to a successful termination, may for the 
time throw lesser objects so far in the shade, that their real 
importance may be lost sight of, and thus though a great work 
may be accomplished, it may be accomplished at a great and 
unnecessary sacrifice. 



( 63 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

It may further be considered, that though the Board of 
Water Commissioners is composed of our fellow citizens, it is 
a Board appointed by State authority, having a specific duty 
of its own — to introduce water into the City upon a specific 
plan. Modes of smoothing the way, by which the work may 
be effected at a less expense — questions of expediency — and 
larger questions looking to futurity — to the growing wants of 
the community — and the preservation and development of the 
great natural resources, so richly scattered around us by the 
hand of Providence, are no part of their duty. 

If this be so, there should be some guardianship over such 
rights and interests as may thus be lost sight of; and if the 
Common Council have not that guardianship, within the limits 
of its jurisdiction, and more especially in relation to the navi- 
gable waters surrounding the island, the strange policy would 
be presented of the citizens of New York giving up to the will 
of the State authorities, one of the great means of her pros- 
perity, for permission to supply themselves with pure water, 
ut an enormous cost, from their own funds, and upon ample re- 
muneration to each and every one who may suffer damage by 
the work. 

The question presented by the preamble and resolutions is, 
whether the navigation of Harlem river shall or shall not be 
preserved ; and in order that it may be fairly understood, and 
as many of the members cannot be expected to be familiar 
with the proceedings in relation to carrying the aqueduct 
across Harlem river, your Committee have deemed it proper 
to give a short history of the most important. 

The first in order is the act of the Legislature, passed May 
2d, 1834, authorizing the construction of the work. 

It provides, as mentioned in the preambe, that Commis- 
sioners should be appointed — adopt a plan, and report this 
plan to the Common Council, with estimates of expense, 
and their reasons for adopting it — that if the Common Coun- 
cil should approve the plan it should be submitted to the 
people, and if a majority were found to be in favor of the 
" measure," the Common Council were authorized to raise 
the funds, and to direct the Commissioners to proceed with 
the work. 

Your Committee take occasion here to correct what they 
believe to be a misapprehension as to what, under the act, 
was submitted to the people. The phraseology of the act is, 
in the opinion of your Committee, clear and conclusive : the 
plan is to be adopted by the Commissioners, and approved by 
the Common Council — and if a majority of the people were 
in favor of the measure the work was to proceed. The 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 64 ) 

measure, and not the plan, was therefore passed upon — the 
simple question only, yes or 710 — water, or no water. The plan 
itself is a different matter. The very approval of the measure 
by the people made this plan, fixed and settled law, to be car- 
ried into execution by the Common Council and the Commis- 
sioners, as ministerial officers, with only such immaterial altera- 
tions as were necessary . 

Your Committee are therefore of opinion, that a material 
alteration in the plan can be made only with the consent of the 
Legislature, and that such alteration need not be submitted to 
the people. 

On the 16th of February, 1836, and after the period pre- 
scribed by the act, the Commissioners reported to the Common 
Council the plan adopted by them, and which was approved 
by the Common Council. The report is an able and satisfac- 
tory document, and well merits the encomiums passed upon it 
by the Committee who recommended its approval. 

After discussing- various plans submitted to them, the Com- 
missioners select for comment the two made by Major Douglass 
and Doctor Martineau, making a synopsis of each, and then 
give their own " Plan of introducing the water," selected from 
the plans of these two gentlemen. 

In reference to Harlem river, the Commissioners say — 
" The river to be crossed by inverted syphons of wrought 
iron pipes, of 8 feet diameter, formed in the manner that steam 
boilers are." (Doc. 44, 1835, p. 366.) 

This "Plan for introducing the water," under that specific 
head, occupies not more than half a page of the report, and if 
it be the plan required by the act of the Legislature, the Com- 
missioners and the Common Council have most assuredly failed 
in their duty, in not presenting something in detail, — something 
in which, if " alterations" were made, the proper authorities 
might judge whether those alterations were or were not " im- 
material and necessary." Your Committee have therefore 
looked into other parts of the report for the specifications and 
particulars of the plan for crossing the river by inverted sy- 
phons of wrought iron pipes. 

In page 362, the Commissioners state the estimated amounts 
of each engineer, for " crossing Harlem river by aqueduct, 
" and by wrought iron pipes or inverted syphons, as to cost. 

" Estimated by J. Martineau, for wrought iron 

pipes, - $187,737 62 

" Estimated by D. B. Douglass, by high arches 

and aqueduct, . . - _ 415,650 00 



"Difference in favor of inverted syphon, - $227,912 38 



( 65 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

After some observations on the liability to rust, as between 
wrought iron and cast iron, the Commissioners proceed, — 
" The difference in the cost of crossing the river by a pipe of 
" the dimensions alluded to, compared with that of an aque- 
" duct, is so considerable that, in the opinion of the Commis- 
" sioners, it ought to be adopted, unless there should appear 
"more serious objections to the plan than any they have as 
"yet heard." 

If any thing is to be gathered from this, it is, that the plan 
of Major Douglass was rejected, and that of Mr. Martineau 
adopted. 

In page 352, the Commissioners give a synopsis of Mr. Mar- 
tineau's plan, but your Committee prefer to give the plan itself, 
in Mr. Martineau's own words, from his report, appended to 
the report of the Commissioners, page 501. 

" A massive embankment, composed in great part of wrought 
"stone, sloping below the water H to J, or at an angle of 34 
" degrees above the water, — the exterior stone work is to be 
" laid into a compact slope wall, carried up at an angle of 45 
"degrees to a line thirty feet above tide. The embankment 
" to be divided into two portions, by placing an arch of sixty 
" feet span in the channel-way, semi-elliptical in form, to 
" keep open the navigation, and allow a free reflux of the tide." 
" The embankment is estimated to be thirty feet wide on 
" top, and may answer the twofold purpose of a roadway 
" across the river, and foundation for inverted syphon." 

Your Committee are of opinion that the plan, as presented 
in detail by Mr. Martineau, is the only plan by which the 
Commissioners are at present authorized to cross the river. 
The plan itself, from the want of sufficient height in the arch 
above tide water, your Committee consider open to insuper- 
able objections. The elevation of the arch to such height as 
would allow vessels with standing masts and spars to pass 
under, would certainly be a "necessary" alteration, but how 
far " immaterial " your Committee are not prepared to say. 

The next document to which the Committee ask the at- 
tention of the Board, is Doc. 55, the semi-annual report of the 
Commissioners, from the 1st of July to the 1st of December, 
1837, inclusive. 

The mode of crossing the river is discussed at large. — In 
page 369 the Commissioners, in presenting a synopsis of the 
report of Mr. Jarvis, the present Chief Engineer, observe — 
"The plan of carrying the water across Harlem river by an 
" inverted syphon is next considered. It is proposed to erect 
" a semi-circular arch of 80 feet span, resting on abutment 
"piers. The total height of the arch, from the level of flood 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 66 ) 

" tide, to the underside of it, will be 50 feet. This arch is to 
"' be placed on the New York side of the river, and will form a 
'• sufficient channel-way for navigation." 

The Engineer himself, in his report, appended to the report 
oi the Commissioners, (p. 397,) gives the detail. 

" The plan of carrying the aqueduct across, by means of 
" iron pipes, resting on a stone bridge, has the following 
"general characteristics. A semi-circular arch of 80 feet 
'' span, resting on abutment piers, which are raised 10 feet 
'' above flood tide, making the total height from the level of 
" flood tide to the underside of the arch fifty feet, is placed 
" next the southern shore oi the river, to form a channel-way 
^^ for the same. At present the channel is about one hundred 
" and fifty feet from this shore, but the situation is favorable, 
" and the tide current will very shortly cut a new channel 
" when it is restricted to a passage through this arch, and 
" form as good a channel as the present, for any purposes, 
" should it ever he wanted. From the north abutment of this 
" arch to the north shore of the river, it is proposed to make 
' an embankment of stone, to support the foundation wall of 
•' the aqueduct." 

This last is the bridge proposed by the Commissioners to 
be built, except that the width of the arch is increased to 
120 feet, and its height to 65 feet. 

Your Committee will here observe that the river, at this 
point, is over 600 feet wide — the channel-way about 300 
feet wide and 20 feet deep, — and bounded on both sides by 
what are commonly called the mud flats — at low tide there 
is about one foot of water on these flats, kept in by McCombs' 
dam, — in other parts of the river these flats are constantly 
walked upon with ease. The arch proposed to be built by 
the Commissioners is over these mud flats, while the channel- 
way is to be filled in by a solid embankment of loose stone, 
and this embankment to be carried nearly 500 feet to the 
Westchester shore. 

Is this the plan proposed by Mr. Martineau, and adopted 
and approved by the Commissioners and the Common Coun- 
cil, or an " immaterial and iiecessary alteratioji " of the 
same ? 

It is not necessary for the present purposes to enter into a 
minute comparison, but so far as the bed of the river is con- 
cerned, the one proposes a span of 60 feet in the channel- 
way, and the other, one of double that width over the mud 
flats, and to fill up the channel-way by a solid dam. — It is 
therefore the opinion of your Committee that the low bridge, 
as proposed now to be built, is not the one adopted, and ap 
proved, as required by the act of the Legislature. 



( 67 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

This report was referred to the Committees on Roads and 
Canals, five out of six of whom reported against the plan, and 
one made a minority report, (Doc. 88, 89,) and here, for the 
first time, the question of preserving the navigation of the 
river becomes prominent. 

The necessity for its preservation is urged with great ability 
by the majority, and discloses the startling admission made 
by the present Engineer, the author of the plan, that ^^ if the 
" navigation of the river is to be preserved, no modification of 
** the low bridge would answer. The low bridge toas submitted 
*' tvithout reference to the navigation, and the high bridge only 
" would allow vessels to pass through.''^ 

The minority report on the contrary, boldly contends at 
length, that " the navigation of the river has not been consi- 
dered worth preserving, until recently," and, as it seems to 
your Committee, not worth preserving at all. 

On the 14th of May the Commissioners addressed a com- 
munication (Doc. 2,) to the Common Council, in answer to 
the the majority report, well sustaining the observation of the 
Chief Engineer, that *' the low bridge was submitted without 
reference to the navigation." They admit that if certain im- 
provements are made in the river and its outlet, large sloops 
of 90 or 100 tons, with masts of 80 feet in height, would not 
be able to pass, and they sagaciously observe that, " in such 
case, these large vessels may come from the North River as 
far as the bridge, and also from the East River to the bridge," 
but for what purpose your committee are unable to divine, ex- 
cept to exchange salutes and go back again. 

But there is one remark in that document, coming from the 
quarter from which it does, that well deserves the serious atten- 
tion of the Board. 

In page 29, in their attempt to show it to be quite proble- 
matical whether the Harlem river will ever be made navigable 
for any but small vessels, they state in relation to the channel, 
that it is full of sinuosities and curves, (which your committee 
know to be far from the literal fact,) and that "to make it 
straight is impossible, and to deepen it will be attended with 
great expense." 

It has just been observed that the Commissioners propose to 
fill in or dam up the natural channel, and construct their arch 
over the mud flats, against the land, that these flats are con- 
sistent enough to walk upon. Is it not reasonable to suppose 
that the chips, stones, and rubbish which must unavoidably be 
deposited on the spot, will make this mud flat much more 
consistent, and thus finish up a solid dam from shore to shore? 
If, then, to deepen a channel be attended with great expense, 

5 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 68 ) 

what will be the expense of making a new one, with all these 
obstructions to remove ? And if it be impossible to make a 
crooked channel straight, can it be within the Herculean pow- 
ers of these Commissioners to make a straight channel 
crooked ? 

But, says the Chief Engineer, the tide current will shortly 
cut a new channel, when restricted to a passage through this 
arch. This may be so, but if it does, it will be by the irre- 
sistible power of a cataract, and not by an easy and natural 
flow of the water. 

To show this, your committee will state a few facts. — The 
quantity of water, the flow and re-flow of which is to be pro- 
vided for, is that quantity only which is thrown in by the rise 
of the tide; the channel itself is never empty, and of course 
never flows out, though it is constantly changing, and be the 
channel under the arch or elsewhere, — nor does it make any 
diff'erence for this purpose whether the channel be filled with 
water or anything else, — it is always filled. The tide rises 
five feet upon the average, (and in spring tides, and during 
the prevalence of easterly winds, which back the water in 
from the Sound, much higher.) 

Now the openings at McCombs' dam are about 220 feet — 
100 feet more than the Commissioners propose to allow, and 
yet this obstruction is only passable at slack water, and then 
only for a few minutes — at all other times it is a foaming cata- 
ract. To your committee it appears to be as clear as the sun 
at noon-day, that the paltry opening of 120 feet must form a 
" tide current " under the arch, not only bidding defiance to 
all attempts to pass it, but probably sufficient, in time, to de- 
stroy the work itself. 

Have the commissioners, or the common council, or the 
Legislature itself, the right thus to obstruct the navigation of 
this river ? 

On this point your committee will observe, that in the re- 
ports of the engineers and commissioners, there seems to pre- 
vail a mistiness of idea as to what a navigable river is. They 
seem to confound the use which may be made of a river, or 
navigation, with the river itself. 

A navigable river is where the tide ebbs and flows, and it 
makes no difference whether even a canoe has ever floated on its 
waters, it is still a navigable river, and bound by laws which 
do not apply to fresh-water streams. On navigable rivers, 
the riparian proprietors own to high-water mark, while on riv- 
ers not navigable, they own to the middle of the stream. 
Since the adoption of the Federal Constitution, all property 



( 69 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

on navigable rivers, whether held by States or individuals, is 

subject to " A FREE AND UNINTERRUPTED PASSAGE OF ALL THE 

CITIZENS OF THE United States," — and it has accordingly 
been the peculiar province of the Federal Government — the 
People of the United States — to clear out and otherwise 
improve the navigable waters of the several States. 

If this be good law, the Legislature itself had no right to 
make any grant which would interfere with the navigation of 
the river — nor has the Legislature made any such grant : the 
river is not mentioned in the Act, and the commissioners 
have been compelled to ask the opinion of counsel, whether 
they had any right at all, even by implication, to cross the 
river. 

This opinion (appended to the Report) advises soundly and 
logically, (as might be expected from the high quarter from 
which it comes,) that the commissioners have such right under 
the Act, but by some misapprehension, or more probably, mis- 
statement of facts, supposes a collision with the powers of the 
Harlem River Canal Company, and endeavors to settle the 
difficulty. Your committee can see no difficulty in the case. 
The Legislature chartered the company, among other things, 
to improve the navigation of Harlem river — and by another 
act allowed the city of New York to bring the Croton water 
into the city by an aqueduct, which must necessarily cross 
that river. But does this imply that the aqueduct must de- 
stroy the river ? Had that been the consequence, the Legis- 
lature could not, and would not, have made any such grant. 
The acts are consistent with each other, and the acts espe- 
cially chartering, amending, and reviving the Harlem River 
Canal Company, are full and conclusive evidence to your com- 
mittee, that the Legislature never thought of the possibility 
of destroying the river, under the Water Act. 

From these proceedings, the Board will perceive that the 
question of preserving the navigation has become a matter of 
debate as to its expediency, with the Water Commissioners. 
This is legislation. Where, in the act, do they find the 
question referred to them ? What right have they to decide 
whether the navigation of this river shall be or shall not be 
preserved, — a question which is not in the power of the com- 
mon council, or even of the State Legislature, to entertain ? The 
commissioners are mere ministerial officers, — the navigable 
waters of the United States are free to all citizens of the 
United States, and least of all have mere ministerial officers 
the right to say whether they shall be kept free. 

Your committee will dismiss this part of the subject with 
the remark that, as they are informed, and believe, that sound 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 70 ) 

expositor of constitutional law, the State of Virginia, has 
never allowed a bridge to be built over her navigable waters 
without the consent of Congress, — an authority of some little 
weight, your committee would suppose, against the legal opin- 
ions of the five Water Commissioners of the city of New 
York. 

Your committee will next ask the attention of the Board to 
the economy of the low bridge. 

The work, down to Harlem river, has been constructed upon 
a magnificent scale — perfect and complete — a monument for 
ages : but here, for the first time, we become startled at the 
expense, — it has now outgrown the whole original estimate, 
and we are just at Harlem river, with a tremendous valley be- 
fore us, — a high bridge will cost a million, and syphons or a 
low bridge biit half the sum. Could not this discovery have 
been made to apply to the heights and valleys of Westches- 
ter, and the heights and valleys of New York, long since ? 
But we are unfortunately alarmed at the expense at the very 
place in which we have the least right to economize — where, 
if anywhere, we are most liable to throw away millions of the 
people's money, by a system of temporary expedients, and 
where the work, the pride of the city, can be best displayed 
in its grandeur. 

Your committee have been informed upon high authority, 
that the sufficiency of the work is doubtful, and without pre- 
tending to the skill of engineers, they say for themselves, that 
they cannot believe that an embankment of loose stone, 
upon a mud flat twenty feet deep, can afford a very solid sup- 
port for the pressure of an immense body of water, running 
at an angle of forty-five degrees, and therefore accord in the 
opinion. 

If, then, your Committee are correct in their views, that 
this low bridge will, in the first place, destroy the navigation 
of the river, and in the second place, will be insufficient for 
the purpose, some items must be added to the estimates, which 
are not to be found in the reports — some of which may be as 
follows : 

A compensation to the owners of the land on each side of 
the river, for miles, and to some distance back, for the dete- 
rioration of their land, and some idea of which may be formed 
from the fact that the Commissioners themselves have paid 
at the rate of $1000 per acre for land on the river, and $5 
and $600 for land at a small distance from it. This deteriora- 
tion is estimated by competent judges, on oath, at one half the 
value. 

A compensation to the proprietors of McCombs' dam, for an 



( 71 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

invasion of their " vested rights," which the Commissioners 
liberally allow to exist, by their communication of May 14, 
but which they have as yet taken no steps to pay for, — nor 
with (it is hoped,) the consent of this Board, ever will, — the 
dam being as illegal, in the opinion of your committee, as the 
dam proposed to be built by the Commissioners. 

Constant repairs of the embankment of loose stone, to 
be thrown into the river, and on a mud bank of twenty feet 
deep. 

The continual employment of mud scows, to scoop out the 
deposit caused by the restricted passage under the archway — 
protracted litigation, and in case of defeat, the removal of the 
whole work at an immense sacrifice. Some of these items, 
your committee admit to be contingent, but there is enough 
of solid truth in them to allow a very large addition to any 
estimates as yet presented, and quite enough to char- 
acterize the measure as against the principles of a wise 
economy. 

Your committee are therefore of opinion, that the low 
bridge, as proposed to be built by the Commissioners, is not 
the plan "adopted and ratified" under the act of the Legis- 
lature — is against the paramount law of the land, and inexpe- 
dient in itself. 

It will be remembered that by Doc. 55 the Commissioners 
distinctly presented to the common council the question of 
high bridge, or low bridge, and that this Board, with great 
unanimity, recommended the high bridge. The Board ot Al- 
dermen, however, *' Resolved that this common council will 
not interfere with the powers and duties of said Commission- 
ers, by instructing them in what manner they shall carry the 
aqueduct across Harlem river," adding a strong request that 
the navigation of the river should not be destroyed or mate- 
rially injured. 

Your committee cannot discover how a mere opinion of the 
Common Council, (for their instruction could not amount to 
more,) even fortified by an ordinance, on this " vexed ques- 
tion," as the Commissioners term it, given at the request of 
the Commissioners, can be an interference Avith their legiti- 
mate powers and duties. But neither that Board nor this, 
together forming the Common Council, have expressed any 
opinion as to their own powers and duties, when the Com- 
missioners are found to be violating theirs. Thus far, the 
Common Council stands uncommitted — it would be treason to 
the public to be otherwise. 

Your committee have heard it suggested that the Board of 
Commissioners are constituted an independent body, and that 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 72 ) 

the Common Council is bound to pay the money on the con- 
tracts, as the work is performed without control or question — 
a somewhat startling- proposition, where legislative powers and 
ten millions of money are concerned. 

Your committee freely admit that the Common Council, as 
well as the Commissioners, are bound by the act of the Legis- 
lature, and by the plan adopted and ratified, as fixed and set- 
tled law, and wherever this plan is carried out by the 
Commissioners, the Common Council is bound to pay for the 
work — but, if your committee understand the act of the Legis- 
lature, the Common Council is bound to withhold the money 
whenever this plan is not carried out by the Commission- 
ers. The Common Council cannot be the mere purse-bearer 
of the Commissioners, to deal out as they may require, whe- 
ther their proceedings be according to law or against it. 

By the 11th section of the act, the moneys- *o be raised by 
virtue of the same, are to be expended in carrying out the 
plan adopted and ratified : the law of the State is imperative 
on the Common Council, as well as on the Commissioners — 
but if the Commissioners pursue a different plan than that 
adopted, who is to judge of the proper application of the 
money ? Surely those who are responsible — and they are the 
Common Council, the representatives of the people who pay 
the money. The responsibility of the Commissioners, except 
for fraud, is an idle tale — they are under none. If there be no 
power in the Common Council to see to the proper application 
of the money, there is a responsibility without the means of 
meeting it — an anomaly in legisla4;ion. 

But not only is the Common Council by the act bound to 
see that these moneys are properly applied, but the act has 
provided the means by which the duty can be met. 

By the 24th section, all moneys to be paid for land, and 
upon contracts, must be paid by the Comptroller, upon the 
draft of the Commissioners, which draft must be authorized 
by the Common Council — and, by the 25th section, these pay- 
ments by the Comptroller are to be reported by him every six 
months, and the accounts of the Commissioners and of the 
Comptroller are to be examined by the Finance Committee of 
the Board of Aldermen. 

To your committee the system, as provided by the act, con- 
tains checks, and allows a supervisory power sufficient to meet 
all contingencies. 

The practice, however, is different : by several ordinances, 
the Commissioners are allowed to draw directly upon the 
Comptroller — and thus this large expenditure is made, without 



( 73 ) [Doc. No. 7. 

a single item ever passing before the Common Council, until it 
be too late to remedy an error, if there be one. 

Your committee recommend that the practice be altered, so 
that all drafts of the Commissioners be presented to the Com- 
mon Council, directly, who shall order the Comptroller to pay 
them, if found to be in accordance with the law. 

Your committee offer the following summary of the results 
to which they have arrived : 

1st. That the plan, as detailed in the report of February 16, 
1836, is fixed and settled law, and cannot be altered, except 
the alteration be ** immaterial and necessary." 

2d. That the low bridge, as detailed by Mr. Martineau, in 
that report, is the mode of crossing Harlem river adopted by 
the Commissioners and the Common Council. 

3d. That the low bridge proposed by Mr. Jarvis, and for 
which the Commissioners have advertised for proposals, is not 
the plan adopted. 

4th. That both plans are objectionable, inasmuch as they 
destroy the navigation of the river. 

5th. That there is no power short of an act of Congress, 
which can authorize an interference with the navigation of 
Harlem river — the river being an arm of the sea, and the sov- 
ereignty being vested in the people of the United States. 

6th. That great doubts exist, as to the sufficiency of a low 
bridge for the purposes of the aqueduct ; and if these doubts 
should be correct — for this reason — and because the obstruc- 
tion of the navigation is illegal, the city will be involved 
in large additional expenditures not mentioned in any esti- 
mate. 

7th. That by the act of the Legislature, the Common Coun- 
cil is bound to see to the proper application of the moneys 
raised on the water loans — and in effect prohibited from making 
any payment except for work done in conformity with the plan 
adopted and ratified. 

For these reasons, your committee think that the first reso- 
lution should be adopted in effect — but as any separate action 
of either Board of the Common Council is to be deprecated. 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 74 ) 

they recommend the following as a substitute for all the reso- 
lutions : — 

1st. Resolved, That the common council is not authorized 
by law to allow the water commissioners to draw upon the 
comptroller of the city of New York, for any sum in favor of, 
and to be paid to any contractor, " for building the bridge to 
support iron pipes," recommended by said commissioners, in 
their semi-annual report, from the 1st of July to 30th of De- 
cember, 1837, inclusive," the same not being the plan adopted 
and ratified. 

2d. Resolved, That the commissioners be requested to pre- 
pare such a plan for carrying the Croton Aqueduct across 
Harlem river, as will allow vessels having standing masts and 
spars of 90 feet and upwards in height, to pass through, — 
and having openings of at least 300 feet in the whole, one of 
which openings shall be in the channel-way, of at least 60 
feet in width — to preserve the navigation, and allow an easy 
flux and reflux of the tide. 

3d. Resolved, That when such plan shall be so made, and 
approved by the common council, the common council will 
take all proper measures to have the same legally confirmed, 
by application to the Legislature or otherwise. 

4th. Resolved, That the clerk of the common council serve 
a copy of these resolutions on the Water Commissioners. 

ABEL T. ANDERSON, Ch'n, ) Special 
DAVID GRAHAM, Jr., [ 

NATHANIEL JARVIS, Jr., ) Committee. 



( 75 ) [Doc. No. 7. 



PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS. 



Whereas, by the act of the Legislature, entitled " An Act 
to provide for supplying the city of New York with pure and 
wholesome water," the water commissioners were required to 
report to the common council, on or before the first day of 
January, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
six, among other things, " a full statement and description 
of the plan adopted by them." And it was further provided, 
that in case the plan so adopted by the commissioners shall 
be approved by the common council, the same should be sub- 
mitted to the people at the next charter election. 

And whereas, a plan was adopted by the commissioners, 
approved by the common council, and submitted to the peo- 
ple, a majority of whom were found to be in favor of the 
measure ; and the commissioners have proceeded with the 
work at the expense of the city of New York, and with the 
moneys provided by the Common Council, under and by vir- 
tue of said act. 

And whereas, said act further provides, that " the moneys 
*' to be raised by virtue of this act shall be applied and ex- 
" pended to and for the purpose of supplying the city of New 
" York with pure and wholesome water, according to the 

" PLAN so ADOPTED AND RATIFIED, with SUch IMMATERIAL alter- 

** ations as may be necessary, and by and under the direc- 
" tions of the said commissioners." 

And whereas, the water commissioners have advertised for 
proposals to build " the bridge to support iron pipes 
ACROSS Harlem River," commonly known as the low bridge, 
which plan is not the plan so adopted and ratified, as pro- 
vided in and by said act, nor an "immaterial" and "neces- 
sary " alteration thereof. 

And whereas, in the opinion of a majority of the mem- 
bers of this Board, the low bridge, as proposed to be built 



Doc. No. 7.] ( 76 ) 

by the commissioners, would be an obstruction to the free 
right of the people of the United States to navigate said 
river, and therefore contrary to law, and, by the formation 
of bars and shoals, might injure the bed of the river so much 
as to require large expenditures in clearing out the same ; 
and inasmuch as, in the words of the Chief Engineer, — 
" if the navigation of the river is to be preserved, no modi- 
fication of the low bridge would answer ;" — and in other re- 
spects said low bridge is against the principles of a wise 
economy : — 

Resolved, That this Board will not assent to any resolu- 
tion authorizing the commissioners to draw upon .the comp- 
troller of the city of New York for any sum, "in favor of, 
and to be paid to any contractor " for the building of such 
low bridge." 

Resolved, That the clerk of this Board serve a copy of 
this preamble and resolutions upon the Water Commissioners, 
and publish the same officially in the daily papers. 



Notwithstanding the foregoing able Report of the Board 
of Assistant Aldermen, the Board of Aldermen voted it down, 
and sustained the Water Commissioners in their Low Bridge. 
We then parried off the blow by the following Advertise- 
ment : — 



lURLiEM LOW BRIDGE. 



WARNING TO MASONS AND BUILDERS 



TO MASONS, BUILDERS, AND CONTRACTORS. 



The Water Commissioners for the City of New York, hav- 
ing advertised for proposals for building " the bridge to sup- 
port iron pipes across Harlsem River," which we are informed 
is the low bridge : — 

We, the subscribers, owners of land adjoining the Harlaem 
River, and in the vicinity thereof, and interested in keeping 
the navigation of said river unobstructed, to prevent innocent 
contractors from being injured by an agreement to erect said 
bridge for the Water Commissioners : — 

Do give this public notice, that we will use every means 
the law will justify to prevent any and all persons obstructing 
the water at the natural channel of said river, so as to pre- 
vent a free and uninterrupted passage through said channel 
of vessels with masts and spars of the usual and proper 
height and dimensions of vessels of the draft of water said 
channel will now permit to pass. 

Isaac Dyckman, 
Michael Dyckman, 
Aaron Post, 
Samuel Thomson,, 
Sam(el Ryer, 
Edward Crowell, 
D. 8. Davis, 
Casper Bowers, 
Isaac Adriance, 

R. RiKER, 



( 'J'8 ) 

John A. Haven, 
Wm. Bradhurst, 
GcRDON Buck, 
Richard F. Carman, 

ROBT. BoGARDUS, 

Charles Henry Hall, 
J. R. Whiting, 
Augustus Van Cortlandt, 
Michael Varian, 
James Corsa, 
Josiah Briggs, 
William Archer, 
William H. Morris, 
Lewis Morris, 
Robert Morris, 

GOUVERNEUR MoRRIS, 

Richard L. Morris, 

William Beach Lawrence, 

J. Green Pearson, 

Peter Valentine, 

John Cromwell, 

John Bussing, Jr., 

John Corsa, 

Peter Briggs, 

Christopher Walton, 

Andrew Corse, 

James V. C. Morris, 

A. F. Van Cortlandt, 

Lewis G. Morris, 

Gerard Morris, 

S. Ward, by his Attorney, 



CHARTER 



STEAMBOAT THAMES, 



L. G. MORRIS. 



1838. 



This Agreement, made and entered into this 20th day of 
October, in the year of our Lord 1838, by and between 
Elijah A. Bill, of Norwich, in the county of New London, of 
the one part, and Lewis G. Morris, of Westchester county, 
in the State of New York, of the other part, witnesseth : — 

That said party of the first part has agreed, and by these 
presents does hereby agree, to let to said party of the second 
part, his steamboat called the Thaines, to run on Harlem 
River by day, in the State of New York, according to the 
direction of the party of the second part, for the space of 
one month ; said time to commence from the departure of the 
boat from Norwich, on Tuesday, the 23d inst., for Harlem 
River. 

It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto, that said 
party of the first part is to man said boat, and defray all ex- 
penses of running her during the time aforesaid, except her 
fuel and wharfage, which are to be paid for and supplied by 
the party of the second part. If the boat gets out of order, 
from any defect in her machinery, or otherwise, from ordinary 
usage, the time thus lost is to be deducted from the amount 
of time which goes to make up the one month of thirty days 
as aforesaid. If the boat is obliged to lie by in consequence 
of the particular perils of the route in Harlem River, the 
time thus lost is to be reckoned a part of the thirty days. 



( 80 ) 

The boat is to be considered as delivered to the party of the 
first part on the expiration of the thirty days as aforesaid, at 
Harlem River. 

Said party of the second part is to pay twelve dollars and 
fifty cents per day for the use of said boat during the time 
aforesaid, to be paid to the party of the first part, as follows : 
Fifty dollars on the execution of this instrument, one half the 
whole amount on the arrival of the boat at Harlem River, 
and the residue at the expiration of the thirty days as afore- 
said. 

In witness whereof, we have hereto set our hands and 
seals, and also to a duplicate of like term and date, the day 
and year aforesaid, 

ELIJAH A. BILL. [l. s.] 
L. G. MORRIS. [L. s.] 

In presence of 

A. C. LippiTT. 
L. F. S. Foster. 



FORM OF INVITATION 






HARLEM RIVER CANAL COMPANY. 



1838 



HARLEM RIVER NAVIGATION 



Sir : — 

The honor of your company is respectfully solicited 
to take an Excursion with the Harlem River Camal Company, 
in the Steamboat Thames, on Thursday, the 15th of November, 
to view the said River from the Harlem Rail Road, to Spuy- 
tendeuvil Creek. 

The Steamer will leave the wharf at the termination of the 
Rail Road, at 12 o'clock. — A Cold Collation will be prepared 
on board. 

A Car for the invited guests will be provided at the Rail 
Road Depot, No. 77 Bowery, at 11 o'clock. 

R. RIKER, 

President, 



This form of invitation was extended, (and very generally 
accepted,) by the Water Commissioners and their Engineer, 
the Mayor and Common Council of the City of New York, 
Judges of Courts, Members of the State Legislature elect. 



( 82 ) 

and other influential men of that day ; and we were fortu- 
nate enough to get several excursions of the kind, very fully 
attended ; by which means we explained on the spot the loca- 
tion of the Loiu Bridge, and its supposed effect upon the 
River, &c. 



Preparatory to a defeat, should one await us at the State 
Legislature and litigations, we took the following steps to 
commence a suit in the Court of the United States. 



SUBSCRIPTIONS 



SUSTAIN A SUIT IN COURT (U. S.), 

Brought hy Mr. Gray vs. Water Commissioners, relative to 

Harlem River, 



November, 1838 



Whereas, Francis C. Gray, of Massachusetts, is about in- 
stituting a suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for 
the Southern District of New York, for the purpose of re- 
straining and preventing the Water Commissioners of the city 
of New York from injuring or destroying the navigation of the 
Harlem River, by the construction or erection of an aqueduct 
over said river, in such manner as to interfere with the use 
thereof : — 

And whereas, the restraining or preventing the Water Com- 
missioners from injuring and destroying the said river is a 
matter of common interest to all the owners or proprietors of 
the land adjacent thereto : — 

Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, we the 
subscribers, owners of property on the Harlem River, and in 
the neighborhood thereof, do hereby covenant and agree to 
and with the said Francis C. Gray to pay to Lewis G. Morris, 
of Westchester, whenever applied to by him, the portion of the 
expenses of the said suit, which may be justly chargeable to 
us, according to the proportion which our respective subscrip- 
tions bear to the whole amount of the said expenses ; and in 
case any of the subscribers should neglect or refuse to pay 
his subscription, we agree that the said deficiency shall be 
chargeable in the proportions aforesaid on the residue of the 
subscribers, so that the said Francis C. Gray shall be saved 

6 



( 84 ) 

and indemnified from the expenses of the said suit beyond the 
proportion which would be chargeable on him according to 
the amount set opposite his name. 

Given under our hands and seals, this 22d day of October, 

1838. 

Charles Henry Hall, One Thousand Dollars, [l. s.] 

W. B. Lawrence, for self, ) 

Samuel Ward, and > One Thousand Dollars, [l. s.] 

J. G. Pearson, ) 

RoBT. Bogardus. [l. s.] 

Lewis Morris, $300. [l. s.] 

Isaac Adriance, $200. [l. s.] 



Having succeeded in the Legislature, the above suit was 
never commenced, and of course the money not called for. 



SUBSCEIPTION LIST 



CARRYING ON IiAl%^ SUIT. 



Subscription to endeavor to preserve the Navigation of the 

Harlem River. 



We, the undersigned, hereby agree to subscribe and pay 
over to the following Trustees the sum or sums of money 
placed opposite to our names, for the purpose of being ex- 
pended in the prosecution of a suit or suits at law, having for 
the end the securing the navigation of the Harlem River, 
now obstructed by bridges, as well as the repelling the erec- 
tion or building of an aqueduct contemplated by the Water 
Commissioners, that may injure the navigation of the river 
aforesaid. v 

And we hereby appoint the following persons our trustees 
and agents for the collection and expenditure of whatever 
money may be collected for the above purpose, viz. : — William 
Beach Lawrence, Lewis G. Morris, Charles Henry Hall, and 
Col. Lewis Morris. All money unexpended must be returned, 
pro rata. 



Names. 


Amount, and 

WHEN 

Payable. 


Total. 


W. B. Lawrence, by his attorney, L. G. 
Morris 


Cash. 

100 
25 
25 
50 

100 
25 
30 


On demaud 

100 

25 

25 

50 
100 

25 


200 


T. W. Ludlow, by his att'y, L. G. Morris 
L. G. Morris, for self 


50 
50 


Colonel Lewis Morris 


100 


Charles Henry Hall 


200 


Abraham Valentine 


50 


Samuel Thompson 


30 






Amount carried over 


355 


325 


680 



( 86 ) 



Subscription List continued. 



Names. 


Amount, and 

WHEN 

Payable. 


Total. 


Amount brought over 

R. F. Carman 


Cash. 

355 
30 
25 
10 
50 
25 
50 
25 

50 

5 

25 

10 

25 

10 

10 

10 

10 

5 

5 

75 

100 


On demand 

325 

25 
5 

50 
25 
50 

25 

5 

10 

8 
8 


680 
30 


J. and M. Dyckman 


50 


Peter Valentine 


15 


Gouverneur Morris 


100 


F. C. Gray, by his att'y, L. G. Morris . 
William H. Morris . . . 


50 
100 


Gouverneur M. Wilkins 


25 


Perkins Nichols 


25 


Robert Boe-ardus 


50 


John Butler.. 


10 


Jared W. Morris 


25 


John H. Dyckman 


10 


Isaac Adriance 


25 


John J. Mver 


20 


Peter Myer 


18 


Abraham B. Bussing- 


18 


Dennis Valentine 


10 


John Valentine 


5 


Peter Briffffs 


5 


W.B.Lawrence 


75 


T. W. Ludlow 


100 


Jeremiah Frie 


5 


Cash 


1 


John Bussing, Sr 


2 








$1,454 



SUBSCRIPTION LIST. 



S; T E A M E R THAMES. 



We, the undersigned, interested in the Harlem River, and 
approving of the measures w^hich have been taken, hereby 
agree to subscribe and pay to Levs^is G. Morris the sum or 
sums placed opposite to our names, to provide and run a 
steamboat on said river. 



Names. 




Total. 



W. B. Lawrence, 
G. Morris, 
Charles Henry Hall, 
J. and M. Dyckyman, 
Francis C. Gray, (by W. 
Colonel Lewis Morris, 
Jared W. Morris, 
Thomas W. Ludlow, 
R. Bogardus, . 
Abraham Valentine, 
Thomas Fisher, 
John H. Dyckman, 



B. L.) 



Two hundred dollars. 
Fifty dollars. 
Two hundred dollars. 
Twenty-five dollars. 
Fifty dollars, 
Fifty dollars, 
Fifty dollars, 
Fifty dollars. 
Twenty-five dollars. 
Ten dollars. 
Five dollars. 
Ten dollars. 



200 


00 


50 


00 


200 


00 


25 


00 


50 


00 


50 


00 


50 


00 


50 


00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 



$725 00 



•i^Mv -xxuuouii 1.1 vox UllVX 



ig jLoiaiiu. kjuuiiu, tjj viiv/ .. u . 

of Harlem river and Spuytendevil creek, it will at the same 
time make available a water front, (adapted to all the purposes 
of commerce,) of more than 6 miles in extent, the value of 
which must be immense to the city. 

For the better examination of the subject, by the commit- 
tee, and to enable them to communicate more intelligibly the 



REPORT 

OP THE 

COMMITTEE ON ROADS AND CANALS, 

[of which MR. WILLIAMS IS CHAIRMAN,] 

UPON THE 

RESOLUTION OFFERED BY HIM, 

Relative to reinoval of obstructions to the free navigation of the 

Harlem River, and Spuytendevil Creek, for Sloops, 

Steamboats, and other Vessels. 

« 

33 O O XT 3VC Z3 IN" a? ST o . 126. 

♦ 

1838. 



DOCUMENT No. 136. 



BOARD OF ASSISTANT ALDERMEN. 



JANUARY 22 nd, 1838. 



Report of the Committee on Roads and Canals, in favor of re- 
moving the obstructions to thu frte navigation of the Harlem 
River and Spuytendevil Creek, for sloops, steajnhoats, and 
other vessels. Presented by Mr. Williams. Laid on the ta- 
ble, and double the usual number ordered printed. 

J. Newhouse, Clerk. 



The Committee on Roads and Canals, to whom was refer- 
red the resolution of inquiry, as to the practicability, expedi- 
ency, and probable expense, of removing the obstructions to 
the navigation of Harlem river and Spuytendevil creek — 

Respectfully Report, — 

That they have endeavored to give the subject submitted to 
them that careful consideration which its importance demands; 
— important, because, in addition to the proposition of crea- 
ting a free communication for steamboats and other vessels 
between the Hudson river and Long Island Sound, by the way 
of Harlem river and Spuytendevil creek, it will at the same 
time make available a water front, (adapted to all the purposes 
of commerce,) of more than 6 miles in extent, the value of 
which must be immense to the city. 

For the better examination of the subject, by the commit- 
tee, and to enable them to communicate more intelligibly the 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 90 ) 

results of the same to the Board, they have taken it up in the 
order presented by the resolution. 

1st. As to its practicability. The fact is familiar to very 
many, that before the interposition of artificial obstructions in 
the Harlem river, that this arm of the sea vv^as navigable for 
sloops, schooners, and other vessels, as far as the old Kings- 
bridge, and vv^as constantly used by the same, and (as your 
committee believe,) but for those artificial obstructions, it 
could, and would be used now in as much greater degree, as 
our wants and capabilities have increased since we have been 
debarred therefrom. 

At the termination of the upper section, near the site of the 
old Kings-bridge, the first natural barriers present themselves, 
to ascertain the extent of which, as well as the general condi- 
tion of the whole river, a survey was directed to be made, by 
order of the common council. G. C. Schaeffer, Esq., city 
surveyor and civil engineer, was selected to perform the duty, 
by the street commissioner, which he has discharged with 
great labor and fidelity, as will appear in the perusal of his 
elaborate report hereunto appended, as well as by the exami- 
nation of his maps accompanying the same, which are depos- 
ited in the street commissioner's office. 

In addition to the very numerous soundings made, as indi- 
cated on the maps, a trigonometrical survey of the whole 
ground was effected, embracing the Westchester shores. 

Your committee have also had the advantage of consulting 
a survey made by that distinguished civil engineer, Major Mc- 
Neil, and also estimates of expense, as made by Benjamin 
Wright. The perusal of these documents has been useful, in- 
asmuch as they have tended to confirm the accuracy of Mr. 
Schaeffer's work. 

By referring to the report of the surveyor, it will be found 
that great deposits are constantly taking place in the bed of 
the river, and are retained there, by means of McCombs' 
Dam ; notwithstanding this, he unhesitatingly states, that by 
making a canal across the fast ground, between the river and 
►Spuytendevil creek, and some slight dredging, a uniform chan- 
nel, of eight, nine, or ten feet at low water can be obtained — 
sufficient for steamboat and sloop navigation. 

That this river will be restored to its original depth by the 
proposed work, from the force of the current, is the general 
opinion of all who have considered the subject ; — besides, if 
not so, when we add to the soundings, as they are now repre- 
sented on the maps, (being at low tide,) the increased height 
which will be given by flood tide, we shall have a navigation 
of fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen feet ; a draught of water am- 



( 91 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

ply sufficient to float, not only ordinary steamboats, but also, 
such lake boats as will find their way to our city through the 
enlarged Erie canal. 

As your committee think the surveys have demonstrated the 
natural capabilities of the river, they will proceed to examine 
the obstructions, which exist between it and the Spuytendevil 
creek, the removal of which will be necessary to make it avail- 
able to our increasing wants. 

The points deemed most expedient to make the communica- 
tion, is at Nichols' canal; which was cut for milling purposes. 
This will be effected by a short canal, and will require a cut- 
ting of about 800 feet, through marble rock. The present 
canal, as just referred to, by being widened and deepened, will 
facilitate the work and diminish the expense; the course of the 
Spuytendevil creek can be then taken for a short distance, 
when, by a cut through salt marshes, and a little dredging of 
the remainder of the channel to the Hudson river, the work 
of overcoming natural obstructions will be completed. 

In contemplating the smallness of the difficulties to be over- 
come, and the magnitude of the advantages to be gained by 
overcoming them, we are not only astonished that the city au- 
thorities should have slumbered so long over the interests of 
the public in this matter ; but that they have even permitted 
additional barriers to be erected, which, as your committee 
believe, are inconsistent with our laws and institutions. 

Of this character is McCombs' Dam. The effect of this 
dam upon the channel of the river has already been alluded 
to, the injurious extent of which, will be perceived by reading 
the accompanying report of the surveyor — this will require to 
be overcome. 

Should no effectual claim be interposed for water rights, in- 
consistent with the use of the river for navigation, the piers 
of the dam, at an expenditure of $10,000 might be so altered 
and a draw so arranged as to admit the free passage of vessels, 
while the dam is preserved as a bridge and adapted to all the 
practical purposes for which it is now used. 

If, however, any claim adverse to this course be advanced, 
and which would, if admitted, perpetuate obstructions to the 
navigation beyond what an ordinary bridge does occasion, it 
may be well to inquire if they can be legally maintained ; and 
if they are valid, in what mode these private pretensions, that 
would interfere with the public convenience, are to be dis- 
posed of. 

The dam was erected by virtue of an act of the Legislature 
of the State of New York, passed April 8th, 1813, author- 
izing Robert McComb, his heirs and assigns, to build, con« 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 92 ) 

struct, and maintain a dam across the Harlem river from 
Bussing's point, &c. 

The 2d section of the act of the Legislature requires that 
the said dam shall be so made and built as to admit the pas- 
sage of boats and vessels, accustomed to navigate the same, 
by means of a good and sufficient gate, lock apron, or other 
contrivance, and that R. M., his heirs and assigns, at his or 
their own expense, shall keep and provide a suitable person to 
attend to the same, so that no unnecessary delay may happen 
to those who may have occasion to pass through the same, 
with their boats or vessels as aforesaid. 

The 4th section gives the said R. M., his heirs and assigns, 
forever, the sole right and privilege of using and employing 
the waters so dammed for milling purposes, subject only to 
the previous consent of the corporation, and the vested rights 
of the Harlem Bridge Company. 

From the information obtained by the committee, it would 
appear that the dam was never erected in such a way as to 
comply with the terms of the law. Previous to its being built, 
not only were the market boats of the owners of the adjacent 
property in the daily habit of passing to and from the city, but 
large sloops, and other vessels, went for stone to the public 
dock on the Westchester side, near Fordham bridge. 

At no period since its erection, as far as can be ascertained, 
could sloops and the other vessels in question pass through, as 
no suitable provision was connected with it conformably to the 
requisitions of the act making the grant. 

Under this statement of facts, it would appear that the dam 
has no legal existence, and should the proprietors refuse to 
acquiesce in the removal of obstructions, they retaining the 
dam as a bridge, it may be expedient to abate it as a public 
nuisance, which your committee are advised is the appropriate 
remedy. 

Again, should it ever be asserted that the provisions of the 
act have been complied with, any claim founded on it that 
would interrupt the navigation, would be clearly void ; of suck 
a nature would be any right of using the river for milling 
purposes, if by so doing the channel should become affected 
in such a way as to injure or destroy the trade, which would 
otherwise be conducted on it. It is an established principle 
of law in the country whence we derive our institutions, that 
no privilege acquired by individuals can be so construed as 
to obstruct the right of navigation, which every one is en- 
titled to on the arms of the sea and other tide waters ; 
and thongh the erection of bridges by State legislation over 
rivers and other streams is recognized with us by long ac- 



( 93 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

quiescence, yet they must always be so constructed as not to 
interfere with the right of navigation, which, under the 
Constitution, is secured to all the citizens of the United 
States. 

But, in the third place, should the Corporation be of opinion 
that there are legal rights possessed by the grantees of the 
State, which should be acquired by the public, it would be 
competent for them, under the authority of the State, to take 
them by valuation. The franchises of chartered companies 
are liable, in common with other property, to be taken for the 
use of the community, on making due compensation, as in 
other cases. 

As to the land through which the canal will pass, it is un- 
derstood that the proprietors will cede it to the Corporation 
for the purposes in question. 

The practicability of the work having been made apparent 
to the minds of the committee, together with the facilities 
with which it may be accomplished, the next inquiry will be, 
the expediency of the undertaking. 

The position in which the city of New York stands, as the 
great commercial emporium of the United States, is derived 
both from her local advantages, as well as her relative posi- 
tion. 

When it is borne in mind how much art, industry, and enter- 
prise may accomplish, in contending against natural disadvan- 
tages, the inquiry presents itself, whether we are doing all 
that may secure to us the benefits of which we are possessed, 
and whether our more enterprising neighbors are not in the 
active exertion of their energies, to draw from us to themselves 
the sources of our wealth and prosperity. 

In the beginning of the present century, our sister city, 
Philadelphia, was our superior as a commercial mart, and al- 
though, by our position, we have not only equalled, but far 
surpassed her, it is not to be denied that this advantage is to 
be retained only by a continued vigilance. 

To close our eyes, and be inattentive to the noble efforts 
that Pennsylvania is making in the cause of internal improve- 
ment, would be to neglect our interest and our duty. If there 
exists any doubt that she may regain her former relative position, 
with regard to us, there are none who will deny that the re- 
sult of her efforts will be to divert from our city the trade of 
the Great West, unless they are met by corresponding works 
of our own. 

That New York will be attentive to her interest, we have 
too much pride to doubt. To what prosperity she may grow, 
imagination dares scarcely conjecture. 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 94 ) 

To bring into the compass of this Report statistical state- 
ments, from which our future increase may legitimately be de- 
duced, is considered to be unnecessary. This subject was 
fully discussed in the able and elaborate report of the Com- 
mittee on Wharves, &c., of the Board of Aldermen, of the 
last year. The provision which is therein demonstrated to be 
necessary to make, for the accommodation of our commerce, 
is fairly presented to view. The important bearing the sub- 
ject under consideration has upon this point, it will be our en- 
deavor to set forth. 

The advantages that would flow from making our island city 
circumnavigable, and establishing a direct communication for 
steamboats and other vessels, between the East and North riv- 
ers, are so apparent, that no argument is required to impress 
them on the understanding. The simple fact of bringing into 
use a beautiful and healthy region, for country residences, and 
affording a delightful and cheap aquatic excursion to a nume- 
rous class of our citizens, is worthy of attention. Higher con- 
siderations than these, however, are what the committee feel 
renders it imperative upon them to endeavor to secure to our 
use this important part of our domain. 

The northern border of our island would be made available 
for the establishment of numerous manufactories. These are 
springing up in every direction around us, and some of the 
most valuable, beyond the boundaries of our State. When it 
is recollected that New York City is the point where their 
raw material is principally derived, and the great mart where 
their manufactured articles are disposed of, the inquiry forci- 
bly presents itself, — Why is this so ? If they can build those 
thriving villages in situations where land is dearer than on 
our island, and depend on us for support, it can only be neces- 
sary to put our domain in an accessible condition, to secure to 
ourselves all these advantages. 

Before the improved condition of the Third Avenue, it will 
be recollected that Harlem was almost inaccessible during 
certain months of the year, whilst now it is within forty min- 
utes' drive of the most dense part of our city. What has been 
the. result ? This place, from containing a few scattered hou- 
ses, not vying with our third or fourth rate country villages, is 
rapidly becoming settled, and will soon be covered with ware- 
houses, manufactories, and dwellings. 

Here the value of a single lot is now more than, but a few 
years ago, was the price for acres, and the small outlay of the 
Corporation has been amply repaid by the increased return on 



( 95 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

former taxes. This case but adds another proof to the many, 
of the vast and vital importance to communities, of creating 
and maintaining ample thoroughfares. 

The restoring and improving of the navigation of the Harlem 
river will stand pre-eminent among these. 

The interference of our internal commerce with the larger 
vessels engaged in foreign trade, is daily experienced as a 
source of great and increasing embarrassment at our 
wharves. 

That our coastwise and foreign tonnage will, in the lapse of 
no remote period, occupy all our available water front, in the 
East and North rivers, is an opinion held by those who are not 
deemed over sanguine in their calculations. The tonnage of 
our canals, and great inland seas, increases faster even than 
these. The ample accommodation for the latter class of ves- 
sels alone, renders the securing of the Harlem river and Spuy- 
tendevil creek so important to our city. 

Here, for the distance of more than six miles, may quarries 
and basins be constructed for all our river and lake craft, and, 
if it is found necessary, for larger vessels to lay here or to re- 
pair ; in the section of the river between Harlem bridge and 
McCombs' dam the water is sufficiently deep to float a ship of 
the line. 

For the construction of wharves of the most permanent cha- 
racter, ample materials are to be found in the immense quar- 
ries upon the river's banks, where, too, was derived much of 
the best qualities of our building stone, before access thereto 
was cut off by McCombs' dam. 

By establishing the proposed communication, a depot will 
be made for those boats which now stop at Albany and Troy. 
They may come here direct without any transhipment of their 
cargoes ; we should offer them every inducement to come 
here, and: the facility of ample and cheap accommodation. 
This city must not be inattentive to the fact that there is a 
line of rail-roads being constructed to make a direct com- 
munication between the cities of Albany and Boston ; to 
counteract the effect of this, the construction of the New- 
York and Albany Rail-Road will greatly contribute. The 
construction of that, as well as other rail-roads, to our city, 
which will most certainly be accomplished, give interest to 
the proposed work. The termination of the Harlem Rail- 
Road alone, on the Hudson River, at a point where the 
water is thirty feet deep, will create an important and valua- 
ble depot. 

In considering the subject, it is gratifying to find that this 
work, instead of interfering with the interest of any other 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 96 ) 

portion of our city, will but add to the value and importance 
of the whole. 

The indentations and coves in the Harlem River will afford 
the most desirable positions for timber basins, whence a source 
of revenue may also be derived. The rapidity of communica- 
tion by the Harlem Rail-Road brings it within as short a dis- 
tance, as to time, of the lower part of the city, as is the basin 
erected at 42d street, which cost the Corporation the sum of 
$70,000, an amount nearly adequate to cover the whole ex- 
pense of opening the Harlem river. 

The insufficiency of the present timber basin, for the uses 
of the trade, is already a subject of complaint. There are 
positions in the course of the Harlem river, that would give 
all the accommodation to that branch of business that will be 
required, without interfering in the least with any of the other 
purposes designed. This alone would justify all the expenses 
that might be incurred. 

By referring to Williams's Annual Register for 1836, it 
will be seen that the descending tonnage of the Erie Canal 
was augmented 127,000 tons, by the increase of lumber 
alone. 

The number of boats navigating the canal in 1834, ac- 
cording to the Comptroller's Register, was 2,585 ; in 1835, 
2,914; in J 836, 3,167. The tonnage of the boats is not 
registered — the tonnage of the ascending cargoes, in 1836, 
was 133,796 tons; of the descending, 696,347— in all, 830,143 
tons. 

The committee will not present any further statistical 
details, but refer for fuller information to the document be- 
fore alluded to. (Doc. No. 80, Vol. III. — Documents of Board 
of Aldermen for 1835-36.) The facts and arguments so well 
argued in that report, will apply in their full force to the pres- 
ent subject, without any of the objections. 

In considering the third stage of the inquiries, as to the 
probable expense in making their estimates, the committee 
have labored to get the most accurate information, and have 
sought for the most economical plan, without diminishing the 
utility of the work. They are perfectly confident that the 
work can be accomplished with the sum they state in the es- 
timate, without including the sale of stone, which will again 
be referred to. 

These estimates are as follows : — 



( 97 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

For draining channel west side of Spuytendevil 
creek, five feet at low water, 80 feet wide, and 
2,000 feet long, $8,000 

17,00 feet cutting through salt marsh, average 10 feet 
deep and 80 feet wide, west side of Spuytendevil 
creek, 13,600 

19,000 yards of rock excavation above low-water 

mark, at 75 cents per yard, ..... 14,250 

12,000 yards of rock excavation below low-water, at 

$2 per yard, 24,000 

Salt marsh excavation at Harlem river, 600 feet long 

by 80 feet wide and 10 feet deep, , . . 4,800 

On several bridges across King's bridge road, . . 3,000 

For removing two piers of Mc Combs' dam and draw- 
bridge, 10,000 



$77,650 
10 per cent, contingencies, ..... 7,765 



Total, . . . 85,415 



The above estimate, your committee are sure, will cover 
all the expense ; though it may be proper to state, it will be 
materially diminished by the sale of the stone excavated. 
At this very time, persons are employed quarrying building 
stone contiguous to the proposed canal, for which, as they 
stated to the committee, they receive $1 50 per load for 
the best quality, delivered at a neighboring dock, and for a 
smaller size 75 cents per load. Allowing that it should sell 
for half the above price, it would more than cover any possi- 
ble contingent expense that might occur in the progress of the 
work. 

Your committee cannot close this subject, without urging 
the Board to immediate action upon it. It is demanded at 
your hands as a highway, it is required as a depot for com- 
merce, it will be a source of perpetual enrichment to the 
treasury by its revenue. It will bestow honor upon the 
Common Council that shall accomplish it. It will be no 
perishable work ; but once make the communication, and 
then, whilst the Hudson rolls its waves, the Harlem river 
will heave upon its surface a portion of your wealth and pros- 
perity. 

The following resolution is respectfully submitted : — 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 98 ) 

Resolved, That the necessary measures be taken to remove 
the obstructions to the navigation of the Harlem river and 
Spuytendevil creek, in conformity with the suggestions of the 
preceding Report, the cession of the land required for the 
canal and marsh excavation being first obtained from its own- 
ers ; and that the sum of 86,000 dollars be appropriated for 
the work, to be expended under the direction of the Commit- 
tees on Roads and Canals and Street Commissioner. 

A. V. WILLIAMS, ) Committee on 

J. WESTERVELT, [ Roads and 
JOSEPH P. BARNES, ) Canals. 



( 99 ) [Doc. No. 186. 



REPORT 

OP 

GEORGE C. SCHA.EFFER, 



Subject of improving the Navigation of the Harlem 

River. 



To the Honorable the Common Council of the City of New 

York. 

In compliance w^ith a resolution of your honorable body, di- 
recting a survey of Harlem River, with a viev\^ of ascertain- 
ing its capabilities as a navigable channel, and in obedience to 
directions given by the Street Commissioner, this Report is 
respectfully submitted. 

The undersigned vs^as requested to direct his attention to 
that portion of the river betM^een Harlem and Fordham 
bridges, and crossing by the small canal at the mill of Per- 
kin8 Nichols, Esq., directly to the North river — avoiding the 
curves of the Spyt den Duyvel creek. 

A full and accurate trigonometrical survey of the ground 
was made in the first place, and this proved to be a work of 
no small magnitude ; the impracticable nature of the ground 
during a large part of the distance, greatly retarded the oper- 
ations in many places ; merely passing from one station to 
another with the instruments, occupied most of the time, and 
it was frequently difficult to find a place level enough to 
stand the tripod upon, in situations where it became neces- 
sary to take an observation. When it is recollected that the 
hills, or rather rocks, rise to an exceedingly great height 

7 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 100 ) 

a very short distance from the water's edge, these difficulties 
will not be wondered at. 

The soundings were taken to the number of several thou- 
sand, and this work, always tedious, was often entirely inter- 
rupted by the violence of the winds ; during the same day, 
the party often suffered from extremes of heat and cold. Du- 
ring all these observations, constant reference was had to the 
height of the tide, and they'have all been reduced, to lowest 
water ; from this cause, but a very small part, of the number 
actually taken, appears on the map. 

The effect of the wind in raising the water, after the tide 
had risen to its greatest height, was often a cause of serious 
inconvenience. In one instance, before assistance could be 
given to one of the party, standing with the instrument upon 
a tongue of land, usually dry at high water, he was immersed 
to a very unpleasant depth. From these surveys, the accom- 
panying maps have been carefully made ; the details of the 
trigonometrical measurements have not been inserted, as they 
give no information of general use, and serve only to incum- 
ber and confuse the maps. 

The scale adopted has been one hundred feet to the inch, 
and the streets and avenues have been given from the au- 
thority of the map of John Randall, Esq., now deposited, in 
the office of the Street Commissioner. It has been found 
most useful to mark only the lines of high water and of the 
channel. The flats are designated by a darker shade ; these 
are partially or entirely bare at low water ; this depends upon 
the winds ; they are covered with eel grass, and visible dis- 
tinctly at all times. 

For convenience of handling, and from the varying nature 
of the ground, the maps denote four sections. 

Fii'st Section. — This portion of the river is included be- 
tween Harlem bridge and McCombs' dam, and. is very direct 
in its course, which is very nearly north and south. But one 
irregularity occurs — this is in the line of 141st street ; it is 
occasioned by a shoal in the middle of the channel, and is of 
much less consequence than would seem from a hasty inspec- 
tion of the map. The channel appears to be deep, and of suf- 
ficient width on either side of it. 

The remainder of this section is direct, and having a deep 
and wide channel, the middle sounding denotes from 20 to 30 
feet of water at low tide, and averaging 20 feet for a width 
of from 300 to 400 feet. 

Along the whole of this section extensive filling is going 
on, in some places in correspondence with the adopted grade 



( 101 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

of the city, and in others to suit the convenience of proprie- 
tors. 

From the manner in which this is conducted, an immense 
quantity of earth is washed into the river, and will in some 
places cause a great accumulation upon the shoals, and if not 
upon them, in the East River, and in our docks and slips. 
The plan pursued by some gentlemen, of erecting protecting 
dykes, is desirable, and this or a bulkhead should in all cases 
be erected previous to filling in. 

The city regulations, as far as determined, extend nearly 
to the edffe of the flats. Morrisiniae creek comes in at the 
upper end of this section ; to this there are two entrances, 
the principal one being rather narrow and crooked, but having 
a considerable depth of water ; while the other is broad and 
shallow, losing itself among detached portions of sedge, de- 
noting a recent accumulation of deposite. The whole creek 
is evidently a receiving basin for most of the wash for this 
part of the river. 

Immediately below the dam there occurs an elevation and 
depression of the bottom, caused by the action of the water 
tumbling over the dam and scooping out the mud, which is 
deposited immediately below, in a corresponding elevation. 

McCombs' dam itself is the chief obstacle to the naviga- 
tion, both by the interruption caused by its position, and by 
reason of its effect upon the bottom of the channel of the 
whole river. This will be treated of in another place. 

The dam is constructed in a very substantial manner as far 
as the foundations are concerned ; they are of massive rock, 
firmly disposed. 

Section Second. — This section extends from McCombs' dam 
to Dyckman's meadows. Unlike the last, it is embraced by 
high and steep hills. On the Westchester side the descent is 
more gradual, and less rock appears on the surface ; on the 
New York side the height of two or three hundred feet is at- 
tained in many places, at nearly the same horizontal distance 
from the w^ater's edge ; while the greater part of the surface 
is rock, or a thin stratum of soil covering the rock. 

This conformation of the ground has a much more serious 
effect upon the channel than casual observation would lead us 
to imagine. 

Immense quantities of earth are washed from these steep 
and elevated rocks, and being confined by the dam, remain in 
this and the upper section of the river. Examples of this 
operation are continually to be met with ; and in some in- 
stances are found slips of trees, earth and soil, arrested in 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 102 ) 

their course, and gaining a new position over some projecting 
rock, where parts of the original soil from above remain with 
the trees and bushes in full life, while others have descended 
to the water. 

The depth of the gorge through which the river passes in- 
creases the effect of winds in certain directions, and thus pro- 
duces considerable changes in the channel. 

The soundings in this and the third section are reduced to 
low water ; with the dams removed, this is about two feet 
lower than the present low-water mark within the dam. 

From the dam to the cove on the Westchester side the 
channel is broad and deep, its course inclining more to the 
east. 

Near the bridge the deepest soundings are about 13 feet, 
while near the cove they are increased to 20 feet : showing, 
as might be expected, a large deposit above the dam. 

The little creek near the dam, and in a line of the 8th Av- 
enue, has been filled in to a very great extent, and it is not 
improbable that a very large per-centage of this earth has 
found its way to the bottom of the channel. 

The appearance of the marsh in detached portions is an- 
other evidence of great accumulation from this or some other 
cause. 

Immediately above the cove is the place selected for the 
crossing of the Croton Aqueduct ; the line of this work cross- 
es the channel at the point where it is narrowest, the width 
not exceeding 160 feet. 

Any structure upon arches must diminish this width to 
less than 100 feet ; this will materially affect the channel, by 
increasing the velocity of the water. A suspension bridge 
might be erected that would not in the slightest degree inter- 
fere with the navigation, while this would afford the best 
crossing for a bridge for general travel ; the two might be 
combined with advantage. 

Above this cove the channel has a few trifling irregulari- 
ties, and is not quite so wide as below ; the middle sound- 
ings denote from 15 to 17 feet. 

At the foot of 179th street is a projecting rock forming a 
very good dock, approaching nearly to the deep water. A 
projecting point on the other side makes this the narrowest 
part of the river from bank to bank. 

At the upper end of this section a middle ground occurs, 
with the main channel on the east, and a false channel on 
the west ; there is also a small shoal off the point of this 
middle ground. The false channel has not a depth of water 



( 103 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

much greater than the shoal, but is distinguished from it by 
having no eel grass. 

This whole conformation is caused by the influx of Shear- 
man's creek; its waters flowing in and out close to the bluif 
rocks, have cleared the small channel, while the deposit and 
wash have found the shoal. 

Third Section. — From Dyckman's meadows to Fordham 
bridge. The banks of the river throughout this section differ 
entirely in character from those of the second, and nearly re- 
semble those of the first section. The high ground recedes 
on both sides, the low shores being at some distance apart, 
with a number of islets and intervening marshes. The lower 
part of this section has a direct and deep channel of thirteen 
to seventeen feet, and one hundred and fifty feet wide. At 
the mouth of Shearman's creek a depth of twenty feet is 
found. 

In the upper portion of this section occur the only natural 
difficulties to the free navigation of the river. The channel 
is exceedingly crooked, in one place crossing the river nearly 
at right angles to its course. The greatest depth in this part 
is from 6 to 10 feet ; the width gradually contracts to 100 
feet. Near to the canal deep places occur isolated from the 
channel, and nearly as deep as the channel itself. These are 
evidences of great deposits, as they have evidently once been 
portions of the main watercourse, and have since been closed 
by the mud, the depth within these remaining nearly the same 

as before. One of these, between the island of marsh 

and the New York shore, with but little excavation, would af- 
ford a very direct channel to the canal. 

It is to be observed, that as the channel becomes narrower, 
its banks are more and more steep, in some places nearly per- 
pendicular on one side. 

The sharp turns in this section, as well as much of the 
deposit in the bottom, will undoubtedly be removed by open- 
ing the dams. In fact, with some excavation, this can be 
made as serviceable as any part of the river. 

Fourth Section. — Crossing from Harlem to Hudson River, 
turning from Harlem River, the most advantageous line for 
crossing is the canal used for mill purposes, and mentioned 
above. 

The width at present is nearly 30 feet in some places, and 
the whole is dry, or nearly so, at low water. The length of 
excavation through the first ground is less than 800 feet, and 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 104 ) 

a large portion may be solid rock, but the sale of marble and 
limestone removed will very much diminish the cost. 

After leaving the canal, advantage may be taken of a bend 
in Spyt den Duyvel creek, w^ith a slight excavation through 
the marsh, to gain a very direct channel to a point of pro- 
jecting rock on the Westchester side. The marsh has been 
bored at this place, and found to be soft at a distance of 25 
or 30 feet from the point of rock. The rods used not being 
over 16 feet long, it is not known to what depth the soft 
grounds extend ; but they went down the whole length easily 
in all places that were sounded. The width across this piece 
of marsh is from 250 to 300 feet, depending upon the direc- 
tion taken. 

After crossing this marsh, the channel of Spyt den Duyvel 
creek can be used, or a direct course through the flats. 

The creek has a depth of 5 to b feet water, and the bottom 
being entirely of mud, excavation can be made to any desira- 
ble depth ; the remainder of the basin is bare, or nearly so, at 
low water. 

From the foregoing description of the ground, and from 
careful examination of the maps, it will be seen that Harlem 
River affords a channel far more eligible for the purposes of 
navigation than has generally been imagined. 

The chief, and, in fact, the only difficulties, are caused by 
the immense quantities of earth washed into the bed of the 
river, and retained there by the dams. As far as any infor- 
mation can be obtained in regard to the former channel, it 
tends to show an enormous deposition of earth in certain 
parts. At one rock near Harlem bridge, a remarkable change 
has taken place. Individuals in the vicinity say that from 
this rock, when fishing, they have thrown their line into 14 
feet water, while at the present time the mud is barely cov- 
ered at high water. 

To any one acquainted with the banks of this stream, this 
will not appear extraordinary. The causes have been men- 
tioned above. 

If no other information had been obtained by this survey, 
the subscriber considers that the time has been profitably 
employed. 

To devise means for preventing any further accumulation 
of this nature, should be the first study of your honorable 
body — whether the original views in respect to the employ- 
ment of Harlem River as a navigable channel, are carried 
into execution or not. 

A large portion of the earth must be continually finding its 
way into the East River, and be finally deposited in our docks 



( 105 ) [Doc. No. 126. 

and slips. It would be proper to prevent any filling in before 
a sufficient bulkhead or dyke has been erected ; and the rigid 
enforcement of such a law would have a very great effect in 
preventing much unnecessary waste of earth in the filling, as 
well as preventing improper accumulations in the channel. 

From the remarks upon the third and fourth sections, and 
from an examination of the maps, it will be found that, with 
a canal across the fast ground, and with a little deepening 
of the channel, a uniform depth of 8, 9, or 10 feet at low wa- 
ter can be obtained. This is sufficient for all purposes of 
steamboat and sloop navigation. 

The lower part of Harlem River having a much greater 
depth, will be found very useful as a basin for vessels of the 
largest class, much larger than will ever have occasion to pass 
through the upper part of the river, while the depth at this 
part will be sufficient for all vessels entering from the Hudson 
River. 

It may here be remarked, that a depth sufficient even for ves- 
sels of a much larger class might be obtained through the river 
and canal, though it is doubtful whether the casual entrance 
of such vessels would warrant the increased expenses. 

No mention has been made of locks, as it will be found that 
the delays occurring from such an impediment would more than 
counterbalance the advantages gained from a slight increase of 
depth, while the mud will still be accumulating. 

In fact, the abovementioned depth of 8, 9, or 10 feet, will 
give, at high water, 14, 15, or 16 feet ; quite sufficient for all 
vessels having constant occasion to pass through the river. 

The first operation necessary to an improvement of the nav- 
igation, will be the removal of McCorabs' dam. This has al- 
ready been mentioned as firmly founded, and will require some 
trouble in clearing, though not more than two or three of the 
piers need be removed. One draw-bridge would be required at 
this place — perhaps two. The modern improvements in these 
bridges are such, that they can be used with but little interrup- 
tion to the travel of the bridge or of the river. 

There is no doubt that the removal of the dam would cause 
an immediate clearing of many of the shallow places in the 
channel, as well as some of the sharp turns and projections 
in the shores. 

At Harlem bridge another draw-bridge should be construct- 
ed ; one is in use at present, but it is doubtful whether the 
bridge is substantial enough for one of suitable dimensions. 
One who has noticed the vibration caused in this bridge by the 
passage of the large blocks of Westchester marble drawn by 



Doc. No. 126.] ( 106 ) 

teams of oxen, will be able to form more correct notions, than 
in merely riding over it in an ordinary vehicle. 

In the upper part of the river several tide gates may be found 
useful; though this depends upon the direction and size of the 
canal. 

One at Fordham bridge to shut out the upper part of Spyt 
den Duyvel creek and Yonker's river, and one at each crossing 
of the creek, w^hile a great water power might still be retained 
by a judicious management of the part of the river above Ford- 
ham bridge. 

Some protection might likewise be found necessary to the 
sides of the canal passing through the marsh. 

The subscriber has confined himself, as directed, to a general 
survey and examination of the capabilities of the river. No 
estimate of the expenses could be made, calculated to give 
general information, as the course of the cross-cut depends en- 
tirely upon the width and depth given to it. This being a sub- 
ject for the further consideration of your honorable body, it 
would be a task of but little trouble to form a full and accurate 
estimate upon any proposed form and size of a canal. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

GEORGE C. SCHAEFFER, 

Civil Engineer and City Surveyor. 



( 107 ) 



AN ACT 

Prescribing the manner in which the Croton Aqueduct 
sJiall pass THE Harlem River. 



Passed May 3d, 1839. 



The People of the State of New York, represented in Se- 
nate and Assembly, do enact as follows : — 

The Water Commissioners of the City of New York shall 
construct an aqueduct over Harlem River with arches and 
piers. The arches in the channel of said river shall be at 
least eighty feet span, and not less than one hundred feet 
from the usual hig-h-water mark of the river to the under side 
of the arches at the crown ; or they may carry the water 
across said river by a tunnel under the channel of the river, 
the top of which tunnel shall not be above the present bed of 
the said channel. 

State of New York, 

Secretary's Office. 

I have compared the preceding with an original law of this 
State, deposited in this office, and do certify that the same 
is a correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole of said 
original. 

JOHN C. SPENCER, 

Secretary of State. 
Albany, May 3, 1839. 



At the time the above law was passed, the Low Bridge was 
under contract, and the work progressing. The Commission- 
ers were obliged to break up the contract, which cost the city 
a very large sum to do, and then advertised for building the 
High Bridge. 



( 108 ) 



LETTER TO SAMUEL STEVENS. 



[copy.] 

FoRDHAM, Westchester County, ) 
New York. J 

To 

Samuel Stevens, Esq., 

President of the Board of Water Coinmissioners 

of the City of New York. 

Dear Sir : — 

Some time since, I, among others, addressed a letter 
to the Board of Water Commissioners, relative to the man- 
ner in which you gentlemen are obstructing Harlem River. 

I now am deputized by my associates to call your atten- 
tion again to that letter, and solicit from you an answer, as 
we are anxiously waiting. 

I am. Sir, yours. 

With much respect and esteem, 

LEWIS G. MORRIS. 

Per 

R. W. Edgar. 



( 109 ) 



REPLY OF SAMUEL STEVENS, 



PRESIDENT. 



■ New York Water Commissioners' Office, 
September '60th, 1841. 



Gentlemen 



Your communication of the 21st inst., asking 
for information in relation to the closing of Harlem River, 
was duly received, and laid before the Board of Water Com- 
missioners. 

In answer, I am directed to reply, that the erection of the 
High Bridge will of necessity interrupt the use of the Har- 
lem River by vessels, for probably the next and two succeed- 
ing years ; and we know of no way that this interruption can 
be prevented, excepting at great expense, while the Harlem 
Bridge is being erected. 

Respectfully, your ob't serv't, 

SAMUEL STEVENS, 

President. 
To 

Messrs. Lewis G. Morris, 

and others, 

Westchester County. 



( 110 ) 



COPY OF A 



' LETTER FROM L. G. MORRIS 



ROBERT SCHUYLER, 



PRESIDENT NEW YORK AND HARLEM RAIL ROAD COMPANY. 



1852. 



Albany, March \2th, 1852. 

Robert Schuyler, Esq., ^ 

President New York and 

Harlem Rail Road Company. 

Dear Sir : — 

As you are informed of an application now 
pending before this Legislature to cross the Harlem River 
with a bridge by the New Rochelle and New York Road, 
which bill will be reported, to give the Company the privi- 
lege, by and with the consent of the Common Council of the 
City of New York, at any place that they (the Common 
Council) may consent, southwest of your bridge. One of our 
greatest difficulties in the way of obtaining the proper 
consideration of the Legislature as protectors of the naviga- 
tion, is the manner your Company are now crossing that 
stream — on a temporary bridge, made for another object, 
which it is generally believed does not properly secure the 
safety and wants of the two very important roads into one 
great city ; when, at the same time, you do not at all prop- 
erly provide for the navigation facilities, as your draw is all 
on one side of the channel, which prevents a vessel from the 
power of taking advantage of working herself either way, 
to pass expeditiously through. The bridge being a covered 
one also, prevents the wind from lending its aid to promote 



^ 111 ) 

the convenience of the navigation to enter and leave your 
draw. 3d. The width of your draw is not sufficient (were it 
in the proper place) to warrant the easy passage of vessels 
loaded with lumber. 

The three above objections are practicable ones, the incon- 
venience of which I, as well as many others, have been sub- 
jected to, by actual damage. 

The above objections are some of the strongest reasons 
given to show if the stream is already so obstructed, and noth- 
ing done to alter it, although an Act has been obtained, why 
should they be required to do anything better. You, there- 
fore, are occupying the position as regards us, which the 
Macombs^ Dam did when we were protecting ourselves 
against the Corporation and Low Bridge across the Harlem 
River. 

The expense and trouble which we were put to in that 
case, in abating that nuisance, I hope you, gentlemen, will 
not put us to in your case. The laws and privileges you pos- 
sess to endeavor to correct the public ?iuisance which now 
exists, it would be presuming in me to inform you of ; but 
inasmuch as there are circumstances connected with the 
manner of obtaining them, I should like to be put on record 
properly before your present Board. Your Legislative Act of 
*1840 for crossing the river was obtained almost as a post- 
script to the Act ; the advertisement for it did not declare the 
object, neither did the title of the Act ; and it had passed one 
House, and got in the Senate, before we, as protectors of the 
navigation, knew anything about it. I then wished to amend 
it in such a way as to secure to us the proper requirements. 
I was solicited by Mr. Gouverneur Morris to withdraw my 
opposition, or any amendments, as the session was so near its 
close, that the Bill would be positively lost by going back to 
the House to concur in the amendments, and he promised me 
to have it so arranged by the positive location and require- 
ments, that my asked for protection should be granted ; 
which above explanation, if you desire it, I would like you 
to call on Mr. Morris to make. 

Subsequent to which, and since you have been the Presi- 
dent of the Company, I have conferred with you by letter 
and personal interviews, wishing to be consulted when you 
made any new arrangements as to crossing the river, which 
I think I received encouragement I should be ; but in the 
winter of 1849 I was obliged to go to the Havana, and I find 
on that winter there was an Act passed, giving you the privi- 
lege to build an Iron Bridge, with certain provisions, &c., as 
to structure, &c., &c., with a draw of but 40 feet, and that 



( 112 ) 

not defined, in lieu of the one you had a right to build in 
1840 ; but as you have located, paid for, and occupied, being 
in full possession, use, and enjoyment of the right obtained in 
1840, I take it for granted the Iron Bridge is to be in lieu of 
the structure now existing. 

I felt confident, under the previous interviews on that sub- 
ject between Mr. Gouv. Morris and the several Presidents of 
that Company, you being one, that whenever you moved in 
the matter, I would have been consulted. We therefore re- 
spectfully solicit your attention as a Company to the fact, 
that your present structure is not sufficient to afford such 
uses of the river as its capacity, wants, and requirements de- 
mand. 

We solicit your earliest attention to correct the grievances 
set forth, as far as navigation is concerned. 

I remain, dear Sir, yours, 

With great respect, 

L. G. MORRIS. 



( 113 ) 



REPLY OF ROBERT SCHUYLER. 



1852. 



Office of New York and Harlem R. R, Co., ) 
New York, March 19, 1852. \ 

Lewis G. Morris, Esq. : — 

Your favor of 12th inst. reached 
me in due course, and was laid before the Board of Directors 
this day. I am instructed to inform you in reply, that it is 
the intention of the Harlem Rail Road Company, as soon as 
the interests of the Company render it expedient and proper, 
to build another Bridge to take the place of the present 
structure, when every attention will be given to affording 
"to the uses of the River" such accommodations " as its ca- 
pacity, wants, and requirements demand." 

I beg you to notice, that I make no remarks as to the state- 
ments of your letter as to the rights and liabilities of the 
Harlem Rail Road Company and others ; as to which, I have 
but little information, and can neither admit or deny any of 
your positions. 

Yours respectfully, 

ROBERT SCHUYLER, 

President New York and Harlem Rail Road Co. 

(Albany.) 



( 114 ) 



REMONSTRANCE 



LANDOWNERS, OF 2120 ACRES, 

AGAINST 

BridgIiNg Harlem River by the New York and New Ro- 
CHELLE Rail Road Company. 



1 852 



To the Legiature of the State of New York. 

Your memorialists, landowners in the county of Westches- 
ter, respectfully represent, — 

That we are informed and believe, that an application is 
now pending before your Honorable Body, by an organization 
called " The New York and New Rochelle Rail Road Com- 
pany," in which they ask the privilege to bridge the Harlem 
River at the 1st or 2d Avenue. We respectfully remonstrate 
against the same, for the following reasons : — 

1st. The Harlem River being an arm, or inlet of the sea, 
flowing up between the island of New York and the county 
of Westchester, a distance of about 6 miles, averaging about ~ 
600 feet in width, with a channel varying from 100 to 300 
feet in width, and in depth, at low water, from 30 to 12 feet; 
with a rise and fall of the tide of from 4 to 6 feet, which ca- 
pacity and dimensions by nature renders it accessible by ves- 
sels of almost any size, and its peculiar location, such as to 
afford most desirable unloading places for all kinds of pro- 



( 115 ) 

ducts, seeking a market in the great city of New York ; and 
the time is not ten years off, when both sides of its shores 
will be occupied for above purposes. The rights and privi- 
leges of this water equally belong to any of the States in the 
Union as they do to the State of New York. The States of 
Maine and Georgia have as good a right to seek these shores 
for an easy, safe, and cheap landing, to dispose of their pro- 
ductions, in our great city, as we, who own, and live on the 
very shores of it. It is true, State Legislatures do exercise 
the right, when the emergency is very great, to grant the 
privilege to bridge streams of similar character ; but when- 
ever that is done, it must so be done as not materially to im,' 
pair the navigation for State purposes ; but if a vessel comes 
along from another State, seeking passage in accordance 
with the capacity of the stream, and the State draw is not 
large enough, she has the right to abate it as a public nui- 
sance. These decisions have been sustained so frequently, it 
is useless for us to quote them. 

The State has now exercised her legislative power on the 
3d and 4th Avenues, for objects of very great necessities, 
and now this Company asks a third incumbrance on the water. 
We say, that the two now existing do impair the navigation, 
and if the third is put, it will materially impair, and that 
we think the Legislature has not the right so to do. 

Your memorialists will now respectfully call your attention 
to the object for which this materially impairing the navi- 
gation, is called for. It is for the sole object of a Rail Road 
from the town of New Rochelle, in the county of Westches- 
ter, eleven miles from Harlem River. At the present time, 
and for the last two years, a Rail Road has been in full and 
successful operation, from New Rochelle, to and from the 
city of New York ; and the whole territory of county which 
this road is to pass through, is but eleven miles long, and 
on an average width of five miles, between the line of a rail 
road and the Sound. You can therefore see, with the excep- 
tion of a very few persons, who have very fine retired spots 
on the extreme points of land jutting out into the Sound, that 
three-fourths of the population have a very convenient access 
to and from the city of New York, or to any other section of 
country they may wish to take the present rail road for ; the 
north, west, or east ; and many of the present appliances 
will be nearer a depot on the New Haven or Harlem Rail 
Road, (although this new railroad may go through their own 
land,) than they would be to a depot on their own road. We 
most respectfully suggest, and urge upon you, that the object 

8 



( 116 ) 

is too small to warrant your consenting to let them put a 
bridge over a stream which at that place is 600 feet wide, 
with a channel of 300 feet ; depth of water in said channel, 
27 feet. There is also the river Bronx, the West and East 
Chester creeks, to be bridged by this road, all of which 
streams are on a small scale, the same as we have described 
the Harlem ; and there are now flourishing villages at their 
extreme points of navigation, which, by the erection of 
bridges, it will materially injure. 

Your memorialists would further call your attention to an- 
other great encumbrance, and damage, which will grow out 
out of passing a rail road through this small strip of county, 
which is now occupied by country seats for gentlemen's resi- 
dences ; and one great object in their locating themselves 
there, was, to be able to be retired, and at the same time 
have good roads, which they have individually, as well as by 
town taxes, spent large sums of money to perfect ; so as to 
enjoy the privilege of riding and driving for pleasure, as well 
as necessity. This contemplated rail road will cross all the 
roads running north and south, and run in close contact with 
the east and west roads, so as to endanger and spoil the 
pleasure of the drives and rides ; also cut and mutilate many 
of our splendid and expensive places, which have already 
been improved with reference to quiet and domestic use- 
fulness. 

All of these inconveniences we think should not be created, 
when the great wants of the public are already so well pro- 
vided for, by those great thoroughfares already in operation. 
We therefore as in duty bound, will ever pray that your Hon- 
orable Body will reject the application of the New York 
and New Rochelle Rail Road Company, for the bridges 
asked for. 



L, G. Morris, owner of 170 acres. 

Thomas W. Ludlow, by Attorney. 65 " 

F. C. Gray, Esq., by Attorney..! 83 " 

Henry Morris, for himself and brother, Gerard W. 

Morris 100 " 

Gouverneur Morris. 500 " 

William W. Fox. 200 " 

Philip Dater, 70 " 

George S. Fox 60 " 

W. H. MuNN 7 " 



( in ) 

Abel T. Anderson 60 acres. 

G. P. CUSHMANN 35 " 

Wm. Denison 80 " 

Edward G. Failb 100 " 

William H. Morris 400 " 

Lewis Morris, by H. M. Morris, power of Attor- 
ney 200 " 

Total 2130 acres . 



The whole project of a New York and New Rochelle Rail 
Road, proving so perfectly useless and impracticable to ac- 
complish, the whole idea was given up, and the Company or 
Corporation was publicly disbanded. 



( 118 ) 



ARNOLD MASON'S AFFIDAVIT 



NINE YEARS' EXPERIENCE ON HARLEM RIVER. 



18 5 2, 



Oneida Cowity, ss. 

Arnold Mason, being duly sworn, saith as follows : — 

I was one of the contractors who built the Aqueduct Bridge 
across the Harlem River, for the Water Commissioners of the 
City of New York. I resided near it, on the Westchester Coun- 
ty side, from some time in 1839, for more than nine years. I 
was the contractor who had the principal charge of the work 
on the contract. We were at work on the construction of 
the Aqueduct Bridge about nine years and a quarter. During 
all that time, I employed a vast amount of navigation on the 
Harlem river. The number of tons employed I am unable to 
state : it was immensely large, and was composed of stone, 
lime, cement, lumber, coal, provisions, clothing, and all sorts 
of stores. The vessels engaged in the business were from New- 
York, Connecticut, Maine, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey. There must have been a great many thousand car- 
goes, but I cannot, away from my memoranda, give a near 
estimate of the number. 

The natural capacity of Harlem river, were it free from 
artificial obstructions, is sufficient for the convenient and ex- 
peditious navigation, at low water, of vessels of almost any 
size. The artificial obstructions in the river produced a great 
deal of inconvenience to me and my partners in our work. 
Very frequently, the two draws in the river would delay a 
vessel for a tide, and sometimes two tides ; and I have no 
doubt that, if another bridge should be built across the river, 



( 119 ) 

with the most convenient draw that could be constructed, it 
would be extremely difficult to procure vessels to freight upon 
it, unless at a considerable increase of the ordirary price. 
The detentions at the draws, frequently a delay of a tide at 
each, would compel the owners of shipping to charge such 
high prices, that the employer could not afford to pay it. 

ARNOLD MASON. 



Sworn before me, this 2d day ) 
of April, 1852. j 



W. R. Anthony, 

Justice of the Peace. 



( 120 ) 



WILLIAM H. COLWELL'S AFFIDAVIT 

AS TO 

EIGHT HUNDRED CARGOES 

WITHIN THE LAST TEAR. 



1852. 



William H. Colwell, of Harlem, being sworn, says, that 
he is a lumber merchant, doing business on the Harlem 
River, between the 2d and 3d Avenues ; that during the last 
year there have been at least eight hundred cargoes of differ- 
ent kinds of merchandise discharged above the proposed rail 
road bridge at 2d Avenue, and that business on said river has 
been, and is, increasing at the rate of fifty per cent, a year ; 
that it is very difficult to induce captains of vessels to en- 
gage to carry cargoes through a draw-bridge, unless extra 
pay is allowed, and in many cases they refuse to go at 
all. Vessels drawing twelve feet of water may arrive and 
depart at any time of the tide, and discharge their cargoes 
at the docks between the 2d and 5th Avenues. And said de- 
ponent is clearly of opinion, that if the New York and New 
Rochelle Rail Road Company are authorized and do build a 
bridge over said Harlem River, at the northern extremity of 
the 2d Avenue, or anywhere below the present bridge, it will 
seriously affect the navigation of said river, which is, as above 
stated, by no means unimportant. 

WM. H. COLWELL. 

Sworn before me, this 31st ) 
March, 1852. \ 

L. D. HOLSTEIN, 

Commissioner of Deeds. 



( 121 ) 



STATEMENT 



CAPTAINS OF SEVEN VESSELS 



THIS DAY ON HARLEM RIVER. 



March 29th, 1853. 



We, the undersigned, sailing masters, captains, and mates 
of vessels navigating on Harlem River, do certify that the 
draw-bridges across said river are very serious obstructions 
to the navigation thereof, and are the causes of much delay 
and damage to us and to those for whom we freight, compel- 
ling us, when there are blowing "strong head winds," to wait, 
when, if there were no draw-bridges, we could clear immediate- 
ly ; and if another draw-bridge, ever so well constructed, were 
made across said river at the end of the 2d Avenue, it would 
so add to present incumbrances as almost entirely to prevent 
us attempting its navigation, except such additional prices for 
freighting were paid us as to be beyond the reach of any em- 
ployer. 

JAMES M. DAYTON, 

Of Sloop " Citizen," no-w discharging a load of lumber 43 feet wide. 

CHAUNCEY BATES. 
ASAHEL W. GILBERT, 

Captain Sloop " General "Ward." 

JOHN ERRICKSON, 

Schooner "Henry Lea," 160 tons. 

WILLIAM H. FOOTE, 

Sloop "James North." 



( 122 ) 



WILLIAM W. FOSTER, 

Scliooner "William Pope." 

JAMES VALENTINE, 

Sloop "Belle." 



All of the above named vessels are now loading or unload- 
ing at the wharves on the Harlem River. I have commanded 
a vessel navigating Harlem River for the past eight or nine 
years, and found the draws a serious detriment to the naviga- 
tion, frequently losing more time to get through the draw than 
required to make the passage from the outside to the Bat- 
tery. 

JAMES VALENTINE. 



( 123 ] 



STATEMENT 



WILLIAM S. CARMAN, 



TWENTY-FIVE CARGOES 



1852. 



Harlem, March 2ith, 1852. 

Lewis G. Mcrris, Esq., 

Dear Sir : — 

This may certify, that I 
am eng-aged in the coal and wood business at Harlem, and 
have had steam and sailing vessels and barges to Harlem 
Dock on the 3d Avenue and 130th Street, amounting to about 
twenty-five single trips within the past year. 

Respectfully yours, &c., 

WILLIAM S. CARMAN. 



( 124 ) 



STATEMENT 



J". "^PST". TTVT'jaLM)' S OP^ , 



ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY-NINE CARGOES. 



1852. 



I certify, that there have one hundred and forty-nine ves- 
sels discharged their cargoes at the pier foot of 130th Street, 
East River, adjoining Harlem Bridge, for the three quarters 
ending February 1st, 1852, as follow^s : — 

Wood,. 11 

Coal, 46 

Brick, 24 

Flagging, 11 

Lumber, 34 

Miscellaneous, 23 

149 
J. W. WATSON, 

Lessee. 

Harlem, March 24:th, 1852. 



( 125 ) 



EXTRACT FROM MAYOR WOOD'S COMMUNICATION 



TRANSMITTED TO 



€\t €m\m\ Countil of % fi^itjr of |teto f orli, 

February 4tii, 1856. 



IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS ISLAND. 

This city comprehends the whole Island, every acre of 
which has been surveyed and marked out into streets and 
parks. Near fifty years ago, the necessity of setting apart 
every foot of it for the occupation of the millions of inhabitants 
who were to possess and enjoy it, was so apparent that mea- 
sures were taken for that purpose by the appointment of a 
Commission of intelligent men to perform the work. The day 
for the fulfiment of these anticipations is near at hand. The 
laying out of the Central Park — the almost entire union of 
Harlaem and Manhattanville — the rapid increase of Yorkville 
— the connection made by actual settling of the city proper, 
and what was once the village of Bloomingdale — have left, 
indeed, but few rural spots untouched by city life, in resident 
population. The complete and entire consolidation of the 
people of New York into one compact community, which will, 
in its habitations, stretch from the Battery, on the south, to 
Harlaem River and Spuyten Duyvel, on the north, and from 
river to river on the east and west, is not as far distant in the 
future as the day is in the past which contemplated the mighty 
growth and power of this metropolis, by laying out and prepar- 
ing the streets and avenues for its reception and provision. 
We should not be so far behind our ancestors. They have 
given us the ground and marked out the lines, leaving to this 
generation, when required, the performance of the actual 
work. 

Heretofore the southern and middle sections have been 
deemed the only portions of the island susceptible of immedi- 
ate occupation, and to which we were to look for present set- 



( 126 ) 

tling. In my opinion, no inconsiderable population will be 
added from the northern part, and that the Harlaem River will 
soon become the great business mart, to which river craft, 
barges, tow-boats and canal-boats, will arrive, and where all 
bulky produce, such as lumber, coal, flour and grain will neces- 
sarily be discharged. This little stream must, from its posi- 
tion, become of much value to this city. The obstacles which 
have so long prevented its navigation are almost entirely arti- 
ficial and easily removed at little cost, the most prominent of 
which, that at Kingsbridge, is already provided for. By an 
Act of the Legislature, at its last session, a drawbridge was 
authorized to be erected at this point, so as to permit the pas- 
sage of vessels, which, with the removal of the old dam, and 
other slight improvements, will leave this little but important 
river open to domestic commerce, and will offer a great saving 
of distance to the smaller craft, en route to and from places on 
the Hudson, East Rivers, and Long Island Sound. The im- 
provement of this stream was brought to the attention of the 
Common Council several years ago, and an able report made 
thereon, showing the necessity and practicability of rendering 
it navigable. The survey made about the same time by G. C. 
Schaeffer, Esq., City Surveyor and Civil Engineer, (Doc. 126, 
Proceedings Board of Assistent Aldermen, 1838,) established 
this fact beyond any question. The Harlaem River is capable, 
with very little outlay, of being made of great service to our 
domestic commerce, and long before the city has reached any 
approximation to the maximum of its population, it will be- 
come indispensable, and its banks on either side will be entire- 
ly occupied with depots, wharves, and store-houses. The river 
fronts on the Hudson and the East Rivers, will be then entirely 
occupied by shipping and foreign commerce ; the domestic 
commerce necessarily excluded, and only admitted so far as it 
may be necessary by means of lighters, etc., to load and dis- 
charge from the shipping. 

Already enterprising and far-seeing capitalists have contem- 
plated some such change by erecting many permanent works 
of value in the vicinity of Harlaem River. It is not therefore 
improbable that a population to be gathered by these means, 
at that end of the island, will rear there a large community, 
who will press from the north downward to meet that, now 
rapidly forcing itself upwards from the southern extremity, 
and thus consumate the entire consolidation of the inhabitants 
of New York the sooner. 



( i27 ) 



SUPREME COUUT. 



RENWICK 

vs. 
MORRIS. 



ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 



Ronwick sued Morris in the Court below in trespass, for 
tearing away a part of the plaintiff's dam over the Harlaem 
River, a navigable stream. The dam was built under an Act 
passed April 8th, 1813. The Act authorized Robert Macomb 
to build the dam ; and, at the time of the alleged trespass, it 
had stood more than twenty years. The right to the dam had 
been acquired by the plaintiff. The second section of the Act 
provided, that the dam should be so constructed as to admit 
the passage of boats and vessels accustomed to navigate the 
river ; and the third section imposed a penalty of $5 on Ma- 
comb, his heirs, or assigns, for every obstruction or delay in 
the passage of such boats or vessels, caused by his or their 
default. There was evidence that, ever since the erection of 
the dam, boats commonly used in the navigation of the river 
had frequently been obstructed in their passage through the 
dam ; that at high tide it was impossible for them to get 
through ; and that there was no draw or contrivance in the 
dam by which vessels with masts could pass. 

In September, 1839, the defendant, with others, removed 
the dam between three abutments, and took away one abut- 
ment. The Court below charged the jury — J. That, the river 
appearing to be navigable, the dam was a public nuisance if 
not built and maintained according to the law authorizing its 
erection ; 2. That if the jury should find it to be a public nui- 
sance, then the defendant had a right to abate it by his own 
act, notwithstanding the length of time which had elapsed 



( 128 ) 

since its erection ; 3. That in doing so, the defendant had a 
right to remove so much of the dam as was necessary to make 
a safe and convenient passage for all vessels at any time of 
tide which had been accustomed to navigate the river ; 4. That 
if, in opening the passage, the defendant removed more of the 
dam than was necessary, or did any unnecessary injury to the 
same, he would then be a trespasser pro tanto. The plaintiff's 
counsel excepted to the charge. The jury found a verdict for 
the defendant, and, after judgment, the plaintiff sued out a 
writ of error. 

J. Blunt, for the plaintiff in error, cited The King v. Mon- 
tague, (4 Barn. & Cress., 598, 602;) The People v. Piatt, (17 
John., 195 ;) The King v. Smith, (4 Esp. N. P. R., Ill ;) The 
King v. Bond, (2 T. R., 767 ;) The King v. Rogers, (4 Burr., 
2523 ;) Commonwealth v. Chapin, (5 Pick. R., 199 ;) Weld 
v. Hornby, (7 East., 195.) 

8. Beardsley, for the defendant in error. 

By the Court, Cowen, J. The Harlaem River being navi- 
gable, Macomb and his assigns would, independently of the 
statute, have been guilty of a public nuisance in building the 
dam. The only effect of the statute was to vest a power in 
him and his assigns to build and maintain the dam in the man- 
ner prescribed by the Legislature. It follows, that any excess 
or irregularity in the exercise of that power, by which the 
navigation became obstructed, was, pro tanto, a public nui- 
sance. Were it not for the age of the dam, and the imposition 
of a penalty by the third section of the Act, it is not denied 
that such excess or irregularity might be corrected by abate- 
ment, subject to the limitations mentioned by the Court below 
in their charge to the jury. I have looked into the cases cited 
for the plaintiff in error, and they give no countenance to the 
idea that, because a public nuisance may have been continued 
more than twenty years, the remedy by abatement is therefore 
gone. It is very well settled that lapse of time will not bar a 
prosecution for a public nuisance ; (1 Russ. on Cr., 274, Am. 
Ed. of 1836; Folke v. Chad, 3 Dong., 340, 343;) and I am 
aware of no case denying that the remedy by abatement is in 
all respects concurrent with that by indictment. (See Coates 
v. New York, 7 Cowen, 558, 604. Mills v. Hale, 9 Wend. 
315.) 

Nor does the imposition of a penalty by the statute take 
away the right of abatement. Nothing is better settled, as a 
general rule, than that the addition of a penalty by statute, 
for a common law offence, is merely cumulative ; and that 
without negative words, such statute detracts nothing from the 
remedies formerly allowed by law. (Dwar. on Stat., 678, 679.) 



( 129 ) 

The case of Commonwealth v, Chapin, (5 Pick., 199,) relied 
on for the plaintiff in error, went on peculiar grounds and has 
no application to the case before us. In The Co7nmonwealth 
V. Ruggles, (10 Mass. Rep., 391-3,) though the statute declar- 
ing the offence to be a public nuisance, itself prescribed a sum- 
mary remedy, yet Scwall, J., said this was merely cumula- 
tive, and that an indictment would lie notwithstanding. (Dwar. 
on Stat., 680, S. P.) Here it is not necessary to go so far in 
order to sustain the charge of the Court below. 
Judgment affirmed. 

3 Hill's Rep. p. 621-4.) 



( 130 ) 



SUPERIOR COURT. 



WILLIAM RENWICK, 

vs. y^ Bill of Exceptions. 

LEWIS G. MORRIS. 



Afterwards, that is to say, at the Superior Court, in and for 
the City and County of New York, at the City Hall in the 
City of New York, on the 28th day of October, in the year 
1840, before the Honorable Thomas J. Oakley, one of the Jus- 
tices of the Superior Court, in and for the City and County of 
New York, aforesaid, the issue so joined between the said par- 
ties, aforesaid, came on to be tried by a jury of the body of 
the said City and County of New York, for that purpose duly 
empannelled. 

At which day came as well the said William Renwick as 
the said Lewis G. Morris, by their respective attornies, afore- 
said, and the jurors of the jury aforesaid, empannelled to try 
the said issue, being called, also came, and were then and there 
in due manner chosen and sworn to try the said issue. And 
upon the trial of the issue, the counsel, learned in the law, for 
the said plaintiff, to maintain and prove the said issue, on his 
part produced a deed executed by Elisha W. King and Oliver 
M. Lowndes, executors of James L. Bell, late Sheriff of the 
City and County of New York, deceased, to the said plaintiff, 
William Renwick. 

This deed was founded upon a judgment against Robert 
Macomb, entered in the Supreme Court in October term, 1817. 
The judgment, execution, sale and deed, were admitted by the 
defendant's counsel, and that the grantors were executors of 
said James L. Bell, late Sheriff, was also admitted, and the 
said deed was thereupon by consent read in evidence. 

The plaintiff's counsel then called as a witness 

CHAtvLEs Feeks, who testified, that he occupied the toll- 
house of the plaintiff to the bridge of what is called Macomb's 
Dam. The following receipts are for money paid to the plain- 



V 131 ) 

tiff by the witness for the rent of the said bridge and toll-gate. 
Considers the plaintiff the owner of the dam. Witness had at 
the time of defendant's pulling down part of the bridge, occu- 
pied it under the plaintiff 1 year and 1 1 months. 

(It was here admitted that the defendant, with others, on 
the night of the 14th of September, 1839, pulled down part of 
the bridge and dam, and again on the 21st, 22nd and 24th, 
pulled away more of the said dam.) 

Witness saw them commencing to tear away the bridge ; 
there were from 50 to 100 persons, and the defendant was one 
of the principal actors. One of them told me that he would 
throw me over, and I did not interfere. I asked them what 
they intended to do ? Some of them said they intended to do 
all things right. 

Being cross-examined, witness stated that he had no lease ; 
hired the house and lot ; the bridge was included in the hiring. 
I hired it from year to year. I took it from May to May. 
There were certain tolls received. Witness was to keep the 
bridge and road in repair, and I applied the money I took for 
tolls to keep it in repair. I had nothing to do with the dam. 
The bridge was on the abutments, which were of stone, and 
rested on the dam. The dam extended between the abutments 
up to low water mark — they removed the dam between three 
abutments, and took away one abutment. Where these abut- 
ments were the tide ebbs and flows. 

The counsel for the plaintiff then produced and read in evi- 
dence the Act of the Legislature of the State of New York, 
passed April 8th, 1813, entitled An Act authorizing a Dam to 
be built across the Harlaem River. 

Also, a grant of the Corporation of the City of New York, 
of the 10th of January, 1814, which said act and grant it is 
agreed are to be considered as part of the Bill of Exceptions, 
and may be read and referred to on the argument. 

The witness being further examined, on the part of the plain- 
tiff, testified that in the year 1838, one vessel presented herself 
for passing — it was a steamboat. 

Being cross-examiiied, the witness testified that there was 
no lock, draw, or contrivance in the dam and bridge by which 
vessels with masts could pass. Boats could pass through be- 
tween the abutments, but not at all times of the tide. The 
whole width of the river, between the abutments of the bridge, 
was occupied with a solid stone dam up to about low water 
mark. Between the abutments of the bridge, from the top of 
the dam to the under side of the bridge, there was a space of 
8 or 10 feet, and at ordinary high tide there was a distance of 
4 to 5 feet between the surface of the water and the under side 

9 



( 132 ) 

of the bridge. Has known, at very high tides, the water to be 
within two feet of the bridge. The bridge was built on abut- 
ments — there was no difficulty in removing the loose stone be- 
tween the abutments without taking away the planking of the 
bridge 

The counsel for the plaintiff here rested. 

The counsel for the defendant, to maintain and prove the 
issue on his part, then called as a witness 

Andrew Corsa, who being duly sworn, testified that he re- 
sided in Fordham, four or five miles from the dam. Berrien's 
Landing is above the dam two miles. Has known Harlem 
River since he was a boy. It is navigable to Kingsbridge, and 
for sloops and pettiaugers, &c., as far as Berrien's Landing. 
Witness built a house in 1785. Sloops, schooners and petti- 
augers were accustomed to navigate the river up to the time 
of the erection of the dam. Witness lives one mile and a half 
above the dam ; after it was built they could not pass ; they 
had to bring up things by land. The defendant lives on the 
river about a mile or more above the dam, and on the east 
side. 

Being cross-examined, he says, he has seen Berrien's sloop 
often in the river, but not within 30, and cannot say he has 
within 40 years. Does not know whether he ever saw any 
other sloop there since the Revolution. Has seen pettiaugers 
there since then several times. Cannot say whether he has 
seen any pettiaugers there for 40 years. Is 77 years old. 

The counsel for the defendant then called Dennis Valen- 
tine, who being duly sworn, testified that he was 73 years old, 
and has resided near the Harlem River for his whole life. Be- 
fore the dam was erected, Albany sloops used to come up the 
Harlem River two miles above where the dam now is, with 
head winds, beating up. These sloops were up during the 
Revolutionary war, while the armies lay there, to bring them 
flour and provisions, and lumber to build barracks. I cannot 
tell the number of sloops that came up. 

There were a number of vessels came up after the Revolu- 
tionary war. Has known them to come up after the Harlem 
Bridge was built, and before the dam was erected ; they came 
up after stone ; they were rough vessels, like scows — had 
masts, but dont know whether the masts were stationary or 
shipped. After the Revolution stone was brought from the 
stone quarry at Foole's, about one mile above the dam. Since 
1800 there have been none but small market vessels come up 
the river. I piloted up since the war. 

Being cross-examined, witness testified that he cannot say 
that he has seen vessels in the river during the last 40 years ; 



( 133 ) 

was within half a mile of the bank, and could sec the river 
easily. There was a bridge, without a draw, across the river, 
about 200 yards east of Kingsbridge, built by the farmers. 
The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 
Nicholas Berrien, who being duly sworn, testified that he 
was 72 years old. Has known Harlem River for more than 
50 years. A vessel called the Lady, and another called the 
Sally — one would carry 6 cords of wood, and the other 7 cords. 
I piloted one of them for some years from Berrien's Landing, 
which is about two miles above where the dam now is. Ano- 
ther vessel, which drew more than 7 feet water, came ashore 
to Berrien's Landing, and brought a barn frame for witness' 
neighbor. There was also a pettiauger, with masts, trading in 
crockery, which used to come up where the dam now is. Wit- 
ness' father who resided above where the dam is, used to send 
his hay to market by water. After the dam was built the only 
way we could pass was with small boats without masts, and 
only at certain stages of the tide, by passing under the bridge 
and over the dam. This was dangerous. Four persons were 
drowned in passing under the bridge ; I sat upon the inquest 
of two of them ; the current under the bridge is very rapid. 
I know nothing about those being drowned but what I heard. 
The barn frames were brought up right after the Revolution 
to replace barns that had been burnt for fuel during the war. 
The vessels that came up for stone were the Lady and Sally, 
and another not so large. The Lady and Sally were the ves- 
sels that took down my father's hay. I know one vessel that 
navigated there after the Lady and Sally, but that was more 
than 40 years ago. The vessel that took up the barn frame 
was larger than the others — it drew better than 7 feet water, 
and he beat her down the river with a head wind at low water. 
Used to see other vessels after the Lady and Sally ceased 
coming up. The time when witness acted as pilot on board 
the Lady and Sally was when witness was young — he was not 
25. Has seen no vessel in the river since 1800, except the 
steamboat last year. At low water not even row-boats could 
pass. 

Being cross-examined, witness testified that in some places 
the channel is two hundred yards wide, and is over one hun- 
dred yards in all places up to the landing. Never made a sur- 
vey of the river ; has been up one thousand times, and has 
drawn a seine in the river. There is no part of the river where 
the channel is not more than thirty yards wide. From Berrien 
to Morris' Landing it is from thirteen to twenty feet ; cannot 
say whether at low or high water ; cannot say whether he has 
seen a vessel there since 1790. There has been an excitement 



( 134 ) 

within two years in the neighborhood about the navigation of 
the river, and some warmth sliown. 

The counsel for the defendant then called John Corsa, who 
being duly sworn, testified that he is little more than forty 
years of age, and has known the Harlem River as long as he 
knows anything. A vessel of about twenty tons, with standing 
mast, sloop rigged, came up the Harlem River above where 
the dam is, yearly ; she came every year above the dam, until 
she was stopped by the dam ; she traded for rags and old iron; 
she Was a flat bottom ; I dont know how much water she drew. 
I lived on the farm I now occupy for ten years before the dam 
was erected. We followed with our market boats until the 
erecting of the dam broke it up. I came there with my market 
boat once after the bridge was erected, 1817 ; it was a skiff. 
There were two gates at the bridge, one on the lower side, and 
one on the upper side, to let boats through. I went to John 
Smith who kept the dam, and we went and tried to raise the 
gates, but they had got cramped and were out of order, so we 
could not raise them. We then took my skiff and carried it 
over the dam. Knows the mill near Kingsbridge ; it is ten or 
twelve years since it has done any thing. Would think the 
rapid under the bridge as bad as that at Hell Gate. There 
were four persons drowned there at one time. Between the 
top of the dam and the under part of the bridge is about ten 
feet. The dam is higher than low water mark ; the tide rises 
from four to six, and sometimes seven feet ; the bridge is not 
safe. When the dam was first built, there was a place intend- 
ed to let boats pass through, about six or seven feet wide, 
which was planked over and formed part of the bridge, with a 
gate at each end of it, which was intended to let a boat pass 
through, by raising one of the gates and letting the boat pass 
under that part of the bridge, then shut that gate, and open 
the other, and let the boat pass out. This flume was on the 
east side ; there never was any construction which would let 
a vessel with masts pass through the dam ; the flume has been 
filled up with stone within a year or two before the dam was 
taken up by the defendants. Market boats used to pass up 
and down till the dam was built, since which we are obliged 
to sell our boats and abandon the river, and since the boats 
could not pass. The average depth of water at Berrien's Land- 
ing at low water would be eighteen to twenty-three feet ; the 
bridge is made of sleepers. 

Being cross-examined, witness testified, that it was impossi- 
ble for boats to pass through the flume at low water. The 
water on the lower side of the flume was below the bottom of 
the flume. 



( 135 ) 

There has been considerable excitement ever since the dam 
was built. As to any new or particular excitement, I have no 
knowledge. I was not engaged in taking up the dam. 
The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 
Stephen Ward, who being duly sworn, testified that he is 
fifty-seven years old, and has been acquainted with the Harlem 
River for his whole life. Saw a vessel within about two years 
of the time the dam was built. A vessel (a sloop) of about 
eighteen or twenty tons, came up the river above where the 
dam was erected, and traded with the inhabitants for rags and 
old iron. 

In 1810, witness built a boat; it was an open boat, with 
masts that shipped, which I used to go to market with. After 
the dam was built, I passed and repassed, sometimes through 
the lock, and sometimes by unloading and going over the dam. 
I could not pass the dam at half-tide ; the dam was built en- 
tirely across the stream, higher than low water mark ; the 
dam the whole distance, was about the same height. 
The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 
Christopher Walton, who, being duly sworn, testified that 
he had seen the stone of the dam out of water at low tide. I 
walked across the whole river on the stones, dry-footed, at 
low tide. 

The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 
William Williams, who, being duly sworn, testified that 
after a passage was made through the dam by the defendant, 
witness navigated the Harlem River with a steamboat above 
the dam ; and as the dam now is, vessels at all times of the 
tide cannot go through, because the tide runs so strong. Na- 
vigated the stream up to the famous bridge, about two and a 
half miles above the dam, for one month, making three trips a 
day. The dam was generally out of water at low water. I 
saw vessels with standing masts navigating the stream far 
above the dam, of about forty tons burthen. 
The counsel for the plaintiff then called again 
Charles Feeks, who testified that the distance from one 
abutment to the other is thirty-eight feet ; the abutment is 
about ten feet. The gates were lying on the shore in 1837, 
and not put on when witness was there. 

The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 

Roberts, who, being duly sworn, testified that he is 

a contractor for the bridge for the Croton Aqueduct, and trans- 
ports materials up the Harlem River ; cannot tell the width of 
the channel. The vessels employed by witness are from twen- 
ty to one hundred tons. We have twenty in employ ; they 
sometimes beat up ; there is about eight feet at high water ; 



( 136 ) 

the present passag-e between the abutments is no more than a 
needful space ; it is frequently difficult to pass, and our vessels 
strike ; we have been obliged to take out stone from the bot- 
tom in the passages. We cannot get a vessel through at any 
time but high tide, from want of depth of water ; immediately 
above and below the dam the water is twenty feet. 

Being cross-examined, witness testified that the water is not 
sufficiently deep ; our vessels sometimes strike against Morris' 
bridge. 

Charles Feeks, being again called by the counsel for the 
plaintiff, testified that the defendant removed about eighty feet 
of the dam, broke up the face of the two other abutments, be- 
sides the central abutment. 

The counsel for the defendant then called as a witness, 

MiNERE, who, being duly sworn, testified that he 

was in the employ of Roberts, and was employed to take out 
stone of Macomb's dam, where the water was not deep enough. 
The width is not enough. The piers are all standing. 

Being cross-examined, witness testified that he never went 
through a drawbridge in a sloop. 

The counsel for the plaintiff then called as a witness, 

Anderson, who, being duly sworn, testified that he 

is an engineer ; that the draws for sloops are from thirty to 
forty-five feet wide ; the ordinary width is from thirty to thir- 
ty-eight feet for vessels of one hundred tons. 

Beijig cross-exaviined, witness testified, that the draw is not 
sufficiently wide for the flow of water. The width of the draw 
by me spoken of, is of bridges with a free flow of water under 
them. In case of a dam, the opening must be wider in conse- 
quence of the increase of the current ; that in such a case the 
above width is not sufficient ; it would require extraordinary 
care to work through ; knows the dam in question. For a 
convenient passage through that I should require a space open 
from sixty to eighty feet. 

The parties here rested. 

Thereupon the Judge charged the jury as follows : 

1st. That the Harlem River appearing to be a navigable 
river, the dam in question, obstructing the navigation of it, 
was a public nuisance, if it was not built and maintained ac- 
cording to the law authorizing its erection. 

2nd. That if the jury should find that it was a public nui- 
sance, then the defendant had a right to abate it by his own 
act, notwithstanding the length of time which had elapsed from 
its erection. 

3d. That in doing so, the defendant had a right to remove 
so much of the dam as was necessary to make a safe and con- 



( 137 ) 

venient passage for all vessels at any time of tide, which had 
been accustomed to navigate the river. 

4th. That if, in opening such passage, the defendant remov- 
ed more of the dam than was necessary, or did any unneces- 
sary injury to the same, he would then be a trespasser pro 
tanto. 

And with these instructions as to the law, left the case to 
jury upon the evidence. 

The plaintiff's counsel excepted to the charge. The jury 
found their verdict for the defendant. 

And afterwards, in the term of January, 1841, in the same 
Court, the said exceptions so taken to the charge of the said 
Justice, came on to be argued before all the Justices of the 
said Court ; and thereupon, the same being argued by coun- 
sel, were, after advisement, in the term of February, 1841, 
overruled, and the motion thereon for a new trial denied. To 
which decision of the said Court the counsel for the said plain- 
tiff then and there excepted. And inasmuch as the matters 
and proceedings aforesaid do not appear by the record of the 
verdict aforesaid, the counsel for the said plaintiff did, upon 
the rendering of the judgment aforesaid, request the said Jus- 
tices to set their hands and seals to this Bill of Exceptions, 
according to the form of the statute, &c. And thereupon the 
said Justices have hereunto set their hands and seals, this 
eighteenth day of February, in the year 1841. 
(Signed) 

S. JONES, [L. S.] 

THOS. J. OAKLEY, [L. S.] 

DANIEL B. TALLMADGE, [L. S.] 



( 138 ) 



NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT. 



I, Charles A. Clinton, Clerk of the Superior Court of the 
City of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing Bill of 
Exceptions was signed and sealed by Samuel Jones, Esquire, 
Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the City of New York, 
and Thomas J. Oakley and Daniel B. Tallmadge, Esquires, 
Associate Justices of the said Court. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my 
name and affixed the seal of the said Court, at the 
[L. S.] City Hall of the said City of New York, this elev- 
enth day of April, A. D,,'l842. 

C. A. CLINTON, 

Clerk. 



And afterwards, that is to say, on the first Monday of May, 
A. D., 1842, before the Justices of the said Supreme Court, at 
the City Hall, in the City of New York, comes the said Wil- 
liam Renwick, by A. N. Gouverneur, his attorney, and says, 
that in the record and proceedings aforesaid, and in giving 
judgment aforesaid, there is manifest error in this, to wit, that 
the judgment aforesaid, by the record aforesaid, appears to 
have been given for the said defendant, against the said plain- 
tiff; whereas, by the law of the land, the said judgment ought 
to have been given for the said plaintiff, and against the said 
defendant ; and the said plaintiff prays that the judgment afore- 
said, for the errors aforesaid, and for other errors in the said 
record and proceedings, may be reversed, and altogether held 
for nought, and that he may be restored to all things which he 



( 139 ) 

has lost by occasion of said judgment. And thereupon, the 
said Lewis G. Morris, by David E. Wheeler, his attorney, 
comes and says, that there is no error, either in the record 
and proceedings aforesaid, or in giving the judgment aforesaid ; 
and he prays that the said Supreme Court, before the Justices 
thereof, may proceed to examine as well the record and pro- 
ceedings aforesaid, as the matters aforesaid assigned for error, 
and that the said judgment aforesaid, in manner aforesaid 
given, may in all things be affirmed, &c. But because the 
said Court of the people, before the Justices thereof, are not 
yet advised what judgment to give of and upon the premises, 
a day is therefore given to the parties aforesaid, before the 
Justices thereof, at the Academy in the City of Utica, on the 
first Monday of July next ; for that the said Court of the peo- 
ple, before the Justices thereof, now here, are not yet advised 
thereof, &c. At which last mentioned day, before the Justices 
aforesaid, at the place aforesaid, come the parties aforesaid, 
by their attornies aforesaid. And because the said Court, be- 
fore the Justices aforesaid, now here, are not yet advised what 
judgment to give of and upon the premises, a day is therefore 
given to the parties aforesaid, before the Justices aforesaid, 
until the third Monday of October next, at the Court House, 
in the City of Rochester, to hear the judgment of the said 
Court thereupon ; for that the said Court, before the Justices 
aforesaid, now here, are not yet advised thereof, &c. At which 
day before the Justices of the Supreme Court of Judicature of 
the People of the State of New York, at the Court House, in 
the City of Rochester, come the parties aforesaid, by their at- 
tornies aforesaid ; whereupon, as well the record and proceed- 
ings aforesaid, and the judgment given in form aforesaid, as 
the matters aforesaid, by the said plaintiff aforesaid above for 
error assigned, being seen, and by the said Supreme Court of 
the People, before the aforesaid Justices thereof, now here, 
fully understood, and mature deliberation being thereupon had, 
it appears to the said Court of the People, before the aforesaid 
Justices thereof, now here, that there is no error either in the 
record and proceedings aforesaid, or in giving the judgment 
aforesaid. 

Therefore it is considered, that the judgment aforesaid in 
form aforesaid given, be in all things affirmed, and stand in 
full force and effect ; the several matters above for error as- 
signed in anywise notwithstanding. 

And it is further considered, that the said Lewis G. Morris 
do recover against the said William Renwick, as well his judg- 
ment or damages aforesaid (amounting to three hundred and 
sixty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents, $364.58,) as also seven 

*^ • V ^ 



( 140 ) 

ty dollars and fifteen cents adjudged to him, the said Lewis G. 
Morris, by the Supreme Court of the same People, before the 
aforesaid Justices thereof, now here, according to the statute 
in such case made and provided, for his damages, costs and 
charges, which he hath sustained and expended by reason of 
the delay of execution of the judgment aforesaid, on the pre- 
tence of the prosecution of the said writ of error ; which said 
judgment, damages, costs and charges, in the whole, amount 
to four hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-three cents ; 
and that the said Lewis G. Morris have execution thereof, &c. 
And the said William Renwick, in mercy, &c. 

Judgment signed this 25th day of November, in the year 
one thousand eight hundred and forty-two. 

W. P. HALLETT. 



Afterwards, to wit, on the 9th day of November, in the year 
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-two, before 
the President of the Senate, the Senators and Chancellor of 
the State of New York, in the Court for the trial of Impeach- 
ments and the Correction of Errors, at the Capitol in the City 
of Albany, comes the said plaintiff in error, by Jonathan Mil- 
ler, his attorney, and says, that the record and proceedings 
aforesaid, and also in giving the judgment of affirmance afore- 
said, there is manifest error in this, to wit, that it appears that 
the judgment aforesaid was given for the said defendant in er- 
ror, against the said plaintiff in error ; whereas, by the law of 
the land, the said judgment ought to have been given for the 
said plaintiff in error, against the said defendant in error. And 
the said plaintiff in error prays that the judgment aforesaid, 
for the errors aforesaid, and for other errors in the record and 
proceedings aforesaid, maybe reversed, annulled, and altogeth- 
er held for nothing, and that he may be restored to all things 
which he has lost by occasion of the said judgment, &c. 




!r5^ 



-s^^^ 




( 141 ) 

And hereupon the said Lewis G. Morris, defendant in error, 
by David E. Wheeler, his attorney, freely comes here into 
Court and says, that there is no error either in the record and 
proceedings aforesaid, or in giving the judgment aforesaid ; 
and he prays that the said Court for the trial of Impeachments 
and the Correction of Errors, now here, may proceed to exa- 
mine as well the record and proceedings aforesaid, as the mat- 
ters aforesaid above assigned for error, and that the judgment 
aforesaid, in form aforesaid given, may be in all things affirm- 
ed, &c. 



OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT. 



CowEN, Justice. — The Harlem River being navigable, Ma- 
comb and his assigns would, independently of the statute, have 
been guilty of a public nuisance in building the dam. The 
only effect of the statute was to vest a power in him and his 
assigns to build and maintain the dam in the manner prescrib- 
ed by the Legislature. It follows that any excess or irregu- 
larity in the exercise of that power, by which the navigation 
became obstructed, was, p/'o tanto, a public nuisance. Were 
it not for the age of the dam, and the imposition of a penalty 
by the third section of the act, it is not denied that such excess 
or irregularity might be corrected by abatement, subject to the 
limitations mentioned by the Court below, in their charge to 
the jury. I have looked into the cases cited for the plaintiff 
in error, and they give no countenance to the idea that because 
a public nuisance may have been continued more than twenty 
years, the remedy by abatement is therefore gone. It is very 
well settled, that lapse of time will not bar a prosecution for a 
public nuisance, (1 Russ. on Cr., 274, Am. ed. of 1836; Folkes 
vs. Chad., 3 Doug., 343 ;) and I am aware of no case denying 
that the remedy by abatement is in all respects concurrent 
with that by indictment. (See Coates vs. New York, 7 Cow- 
en, 558, 604. Mills vs. Hull, 9 Wend., 315.) 

Nor does the imposition of a penalty by the statute take 
away the right of abatement. Nothing is better settled, as a 
general rule, than that the addition of a penalty by statute, for 
a common law offence, is merely cumulative, and that without 



( 142 ) 

negative words, such statute detracts nothing from the reme- 
dies formerly allowed by law, (Dwar. on Stat., 678, 679.) The 
case of Commonwealth vs. Chapin, (5 Pick., 199,) went on 
peculiar grounds, and has no application to the case before us. 
In the Commonwealth vs. Ruggles, (10 Mass. Rep., 391-3,) 
though the statute declaring the offence to be a public nui- 
sance, itself prescribed a summary remedy : yet Sewall, J., 
said this was merely cumulative, and that an indictment would 
lie, notwithstanding, (Dwar. on Stat., 600, S. P.) Here it is 
not necessary to go so far, in order to sustain the charge of 
the Court below. 
Judffment affirmed. 



( 140 ) 




RENWICT^ vs. MOIIKIS. 





When an act was passed giving a person the right of erect- 
ing and maintaining a dam in a navigable river, and the dam 
was so built as to obstruct the navigation beyond what the act 
authorized ; held, a public nuisance, and liable to abatement 
'pro tanto by any one, though it had stood for more than twenty 
years. 

The right of abating or indicting a public nuisance is not 
affected by a statute imposing a penalty for the offence, unless 
negative words are added evincing an intent to exclude com- 
mon law remedies. 

When a new offence is created by statute, and a penalty 
provided for it, no other punishment can be imposed. Per 
W^ahvorth, Chancellor. 

So where a new right is given by statute, and a remedy 
provided for the violation of it, the party is confined to this 
remedy. Per Walworth, Chancellor. 

On error from the Supreme Court, when the judgment of 
the Superior Court of the City of New York was affirmed. 
For a statement of the facts, and the opinion of the Supreme 
Court, see 3d Hill. 621, et seq. 

J. Blunt and B. F. Butler for the plaintiff in error. 1st. 
The plaintiff's dam was constructed under the act of April 8, 
1813, (3 Laws of N. Y., W^eb. & Skin, ed., p. 161,) and could 
not be abated except by legal process. (Crenshaw vs. The 
Slate River Company, 6 Rand. Rep., 145.) 2nd. A penalty 
was provided by the act for obstructing the navigation, and 
therefore the remedy by abatement could not be resorted to. 
(Commonwealth vs. Chapin, 5 Pick., 199.) 3d. When a right 



( 141 ) 

or claim to use a dam has been enjoyed or exercised without 
interruption, for twenty years, under a statute, individuals 
cannot abate it except by leg-al process. (The King vs. Mon- 
tague, 4 Barn. & C£ess., 593^02 ; Tl^^e People vs. Piatt, 17 
~" ]Kingys^^mith^ 4 Esp. N. P. Rep., 
\-i T. R., 767 r'The<K:i\iV^- Rogers, 



Jojins. Rep., 195; The~;King>s^^mith^ 4 Esp. N. P. Rep., 
lll^--rTle I»ig'%5. B?hiC" " " ''"' >-^-«- - - - 



4 Burr., 2523.) 

^~^. L(pr(;^Jun.';"for ^he^'flefer)Jant in error, cited a'frd-.iwm- 

*mented on Thompson vs. The Peof)le, (23 Wend.," 537,) Mills 

vs. Haw, (9 Id., 315,) Weld 'y^. Hornby, (7 East., 195,) Hart 

vs. The Mayor of Albany, (9 Wend., 571, 577 ; 3 Paige, 213, 

S. C; Wetmore vs. Tracy, (14 Wend., 250, 254. )| 

The Chancellor. The Harlem river was an arm of the 
sea, and a public navigable river ; and it was a public nuisance 
to obstruct the navigation thereof without authority, of law. 
The act of the legislature did not authorize the obstruction of 
the navigation of the river in the manner in which it was done 
by the dam in question. The length of time which this public 
nuisance had been continued did not legalize it ; for every 
continuation of the obstruction was of itself an offence. (Mills 
vs. Haw, 9 Wend Rep., 315.) In the case of The King vs. 
Montague, (4 Barn. & Cress., 598,) the question arose between 
a public road and a navigable passage ; and as the public road 
had existed so long that it was impossible to show that the 
navigable stream existed at the time the public road was 
made, the court presumed that the right of navigation had 
been extinguished in favor of the conflicting public right of the 
road. But the decision of the Court of King's Bench in the 
case of Folkes vs. Chad, (3 Doug. Rep., 340,) shows that 
twenty years' continuance of a nuisance is not a bar to an 
indictment to abate it ; and if so, any individual may abate it 
as a public nuisance. 

When a new offence is created, and a penalty is given for 
it, or a new right is given, and specific relief given for the 
violation of such right, the punishment or remedy is confined 
to that given by statute. (See Stafford vs. Ingersoll, :\ Hill., 
38, 41, 2.) But giving a superadded penalty for the erection 
or continuance of a nuisance does not prevent the common law 
right of the public to have it indicted and removed as a nui- 
sance ; nor does it prevent its being abated m the usual way 
by individuals, at the peril of showing that it was a nuisance, 
and that they did no unnecessary injury in removing it. 

Here the questions of fact were all properly submitted to 



( 142 ) 

the jury, who have found for the defendant upon every point 
which was material to his defence. 

I think the judgment should therefore be affirmed. 

Senators Porter and Lott also delivered opinions in favor of 
affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court, and 

On the question being put, " ISliall this judgment be re- 
versed ?" all the members present who heard the argument, 
twenty-three in number, voted for affirming. 

Judgment affirmed. 



( 143 ) 

To the Editor of the Westchester Gazette. 
IMPROVEMENT OF THE HARLEM RIVER. 



Mr. Editor : In your paper of the 17th January, 1857, is an 
article by E. F. T., of Brooklyn, relating to the improvement of 
the Harlem River, wherein he discussed the importance and 
practicability of ^^ filling up''^ instead of improving its naviga- 
tion, and in that manner to facilitate the annexation of the 
lower end of Westchester County to the City of New York — 
to lay out some fine parks, squares, &c. 

In this article I don't propose to discuss the possibility, the 
vastness or enormous expenses attendant upon its accomplish- 
ment, but merely as to the policy of such a movement, as to 
the advantages or disadvantages to accrue therefrom to the 
State and City of New York — and if even in a national point 
of view, it were not adverse to a good system of public 
economy. 

We have now a natural channel connecting one of the no- 
blest rivers of this continent to an arm of the great Atlantic, 
which at no great Herculean labor can be made, not only navi- 
gable for ordinary river craft, but might be made the reposi- 
tory of the shipping of our Commercial Emporium — a grand 
depot for the vast produce of the Great West, which at the 
present time is crowded in an indiscriminate chaotic mass of 
incongruous matter, in the shape of Western corn, flour, pork 
and whiskey, — of sugar, pitch, molasses, raisins and tobacco, 
from the South, — coal, iron, wood, stone and bricks, from the 
interior, — copper, furs, fish and peltry, from the North ; and 
fish, lumber, calico.s, shoes and " Yankee Notions," from the 
East ; without taking in account the immense imports from 
ioreign countries, which increase in importance and extent 
every year, has all to be landed, and stored at this small focus, 
the Southern extremity of the " little tongue of land" known 
as Manhattan Island, — the whole length of shipping water-line 
not exceeding six miles in extent ; thereby obstructing the 
navigation of those waters and endangering the safety of pro- 
perty and even life, and also concentrating in the hands of a 
few individuals the monopoly of water privileges : whereas 
were the waters of the Harlem River made not only navigable 



( 144 ) 

for ordinary river craft, but so improved as to make it an entre- 
pot for the Northern, Western and interior agricultural produce 
as well as mechanical productions, it would be a vast relief to 
the lower part of the city, beside enhancing the value of up 
town property as well as that of Westchester, not only on the 
borders of the river, but for miles inland. Whereas by the 
" filling up" system there would be but a few more lots added 
at an enormous cost, to the over supply (at least for the pre- 
sent) of the sort of property now in the market, without in the 
least improving the value of landed property on either shores 
of the river. 

Should, however, the Harlem River be made navigable, and 
so improved as to be capable of receiving our commercial navy, 
it would in a great measure tend to relieve the now over-crowd- 
ed " Down Town" business portion of the city, without in the 
least deteriorating the value of property or in any way crip- 
pling commerce in that locality. It would diffuse through the 
surrounding country all the advantages incidental to the prox- 
imity of a great commercial mart ; not only would the sur- 
rounding towns, or even counties, participate in these improve- 
ments, but the revenues of the State would feel the enlivening 
influence of the greatly growing commerce of its metropolis. 

It is only by such an improvement that we can expect to 
retain the ascendancy over other large cities of the adjoining 
States with regard to the traffic in the agricultural productions 
of the rich and fertile West and North, which, unless there 
are more accessible means of trans-shipment provided than 
there are at present, will, in a very few years, be diverted to 
some more available locality. 

PUBLICOLA. 

Trejnont, January, 1857. 

N. B. — To give the valley of the Harlem River an equal 
grade with the adjacent country from Third Avenue to Kings- 
bridge, it would require the removal of about ninety millions 
of yards of earth, at a cost of at least thirty million dollars. 
And for all this outlay there would not be more than five hun- 
dred acres of "terra firma" than there is at present, between 
Westchester County and the City of New York, which would 
have to sell for about $60,000 per acre to pay first cost. 

PUBLICOLA. 



^x^tMnxtB, 



146 

Dr. Steamboat Thames i7i Account with 

1838. 

Oct. 20. To Paid E. A. Bill on acc't of Charter at 

Norwich, New London Co., Conn $50 GO 

" 23. Traveling expenses to Norwich and 

home in three days 11 33 

" 23. Expenses in city for hack hire, &c., get- 
ting a cargo of wood and spiles 2 19 

" 25. Pilot from Hurlgate to Harlem 2 00 

25. Traveling expense in Harlem and New 

York 2 44 

" 26. Cortny Hall, captain of sloop " Star," 

of New Jersey, for 15J cords of wood, 

at $4 50 69 75 

" 26. Freight of above 10 00 

" 26. '• " 50 spiles 2 00 

" 26. Expense on acc't of McComb's Dam... 5 00 

" 26. Pilot for Cortny Hall 5 00 

" 26. Sundries 25 

" 27. Do 25 

" 29. For postage 13 

" 29. Cash to Captain Stoddard, on acc't of 

charter of Thames 1 37 50 

Nov. 1. Expense for self and men for three days 1 24 

" 3. For painting a sign on stage 2 50 

" 5. Rae for labor on river, building wharves, 

&c 43 50 

" 5. Horse keep, &c, at Stammers 2 50 

" 15. Schooner Eclipse, for two days remain- 

ing above dam on acc't of Excursion. 10 00 

" 16. For Hi cords of wood, at $5 50 58 27 

'• 16. Freight of above to sloop Mary 16 87 

" 16. Wm. Weeks, for staking out the chan- 
nel and building wharfs 13 50 

$446 22 



147 

Lewis G. Morris. Cr. 

" Rec'd from C. H. Hall 100 00 

'* " '■' Capt. Stoddard, on aco't 

of earnings of boat. 30 00 

21. " " " Capt. Stoddard, on acc't 

of earnings of boat 10 94 



$140 94 



148 

'r. Steamboat Thames in Account with 

1838. 

Amount brought over $446 22 

)ct. 16. To Paid for 50 spiles for building dock.. 25 00 

" 16. " E. Kemp, stage driver 10 00 

" 17. " in full for charter. 191 19 

" 17. " for wood to return with 6 00 

" 26. " schooner Eclipse for distributing 

spiles and wood. 5 00 

*' 26. " my traveling expenses 2 50 

Nov. 20. " " " 1 00 

** 28. " " " 2 days 1 25 

Dec. 4. " H. C. Rant for wood 25 00 

" 5. " for lumber for building wharfs, &c. 53 92 

" 7. " E. Kemp, in full for driving stage 18 25 

*' 7. '* traveling expense 1 00 

" 7. " for use of a boat as tender to the 

Thames 3 00 

" 7. " for horse hire 24 00 

" 11. " Huestis for horse keep, boarding, 

driver, &c 53 68 

" 13. " traveling expense 75 

1839. 

Jan. 6. " Dodge, at King's Bridge 1 00 

" 7. " Steamboat Bell 63 

'' 7. " Thomas Fisher in full for stage 

hire 33 00 

" 7. <' J. Piatt & Son, in full for horse 

feed, nails, &c 19 56 

«' 25. " Downing, for refreshments 66 00 

" 25. *' for advertising in sundry papers. 47 06 
Feb. 15. " M. Rae, for services at landing 

place at King's Bridge 2 86 

Amount carried to General Harlem River account, 
page 154, as at this date I intend uniting the 
two accounts. $1037 87 



I 



149 



1838 




Nov. 


21. 


it 


23. 


li 


23. 


n 


30. 


Dec. 


2. 


ii 


2. 


11. 


2. 


it 


2. 


tt 


7. 


it 


7. 



(< 


7 


(( 


10 


1839 




an'y 


2 


(( 


18 



25. 



$140 


94 


25 


00 


25 


00 


10 


00 


50 


00 


50 


00 


200 


00 


50 


00 


5 


00 


10 


00 



Lewis G. Morris. Cr. 

Amount brought forward 

By amount received of (fen. R. Bogardus 

" J. & M. Dyckman 

" Ab'm. Valentine. 

" J. W. Morris & 
Brothers. ..... 

" F.C.Gray 

" Wm. B.Lawrence 

" T. W. Ludlow.. 

" Thomas Fisher.. 

" J. M. Dyckman.. 

" Kemp, stage dri- 
ver, for fare re- 
ceived between 
Harlem and Mc- 
Comb's Dam.. 

" Col. Lewis Morris 

" Huestis for 3i 
cords of wood, 
which was left . 

" Gouveneur Morris 

" Lewis G. Morris 

for one cord of 

wood 

" Wm.B. Lawrence 

" J. Randall, when 

the boat was 

running, as a 

subscription 5 00 



4 


73 


50 


00 


21 


12 


50 


00 


6 


50 


100 


00 



By amount to Harlem River account, page 155. .. $803 29 



150 

Dr. Harlem River, and Suit tvith Renwick, 

1838. 

Aug. 17, To Traveling Expenses relative to S. B., 

at Verplanck's Point $1 37 

" 21. " Traveling Expenses relative to S. B., 

at Verplanck's Point 1 50 

" 21. " Paid A. T. Anderson counsel fee 50 00 

" 21. *' " R. H. Morris " 50 00 

" 21. " " Daniel Lord, Jr. " 50 00 

" 31. " Cash spent in attempting Cole's Bridge 

and McComb's Dam 2 81 

Sep. 1. " Expenses in City, relative to Steam 

Boat. I 18 

" 3. " Traveling Expenses 1 25 

8. '' " " Steam Boat 1 38 

" 10. " Paid Randall for delivering a cargo of 

brick at McComb's Dam, for the 

purpose of testing Cole's Bridge 

and the dam 8 81 

" 13. " Expenses for the last four days in 

New York, Poughkeepsie, Jersey 

City, &c., in trying to get steamboat 

and vessels with coal 14 11 

" 15. " Paid 63 men as wages for assistance 

in abating a nuisance and putting 

the Nonpareil over McComb's Dam. 63 88 
" " " " J. & C. Morgan, freight, hire of 

men, supplies, &c., as per bill 88 00 

" " " Cash for Sundries 1 36 

" 17. " Hack hire, and traveling expenses for 

2 days 4 63 

" 18 & 19. To Paid sundry traveling expenses 2 38 

'' 21,24,25, 29. Traveling expenses... 11 41 

Oct. 2. " " Mr. Crane, for removing stone in 

in Dam 50 00 

" " " " Expense and horse hire, for 2 

days 4 25 

" 13. •' " do do " 3 50 

'* 16. " " Crane for removing stone 35 00 

$446 82 



151 



In account luith L. G. Morris, 



Cr. 



1838. 

Aug. By Reed, of Saml. Thompson on Subscription 

List $30 00 

of T. W. Ludlow do 25 00 

" L.G.Morris 25 00' 

" J. & M. Dyckman 25 00 

" Wm. B. Lawrence 100 00 

" Gouveneur Morris 50 00 

'* Abraham Valentine 25 00 

Oct. 16" " " Col. Lewis Morris 50 00 



$330 00 



152 



Dr. 

1838. 

Oct 16, 
." 17. 



Nov. 



23. 

29. 

1. 



16. 



Nov. 21. 
28 & 30. 
Dec. 4. 
" 5. 



7. 
12. 
13. 



Harlem Rive?', and Suit ivith Renwick, 

Amount brought over $446 82 

To Cash, paid for copying part of answer in 

Chancery and Commissioner's fee 2 38 
" " Expense for one day and night in 
Harlem and Morrisania horse 
hire, &c., for McSeaman and self, 
in obtaining signatures to answer 7 72 
" Expense in City on the 16th instant 1 36 
" Traveling Expenses, horse keep, &c. 2 19 

" For Grapling Irons and Rake 43 38 

" Traveling Expenses 1 25 

" For lithographing answer in Chancery 

suit 44 40 

" Jos. Crane in full, in full for work 
and in full for removing stone in 

Dam 28 00 

" My expenses 1 25 

" 1 75 

" Sundry expenses 2 50 

" Randall, for a pilot which brought 
the sloop load of brick to test the 
Harlem Bridge, and McComb's 

Dam 2 00 

" My expenses _ 1 00 

'* D. B. Ogden, as fee 50 00 

" Expenses, two days 1 50 



$637 50 



153 

In Account with L. G. Morris, Cr. 

1838. 

Oct. 17, By Amount brought forward $330 00 

Nov. '* " Received of General Bogadus 50 00 

''20. " " " P. Valentine 10 00 

"30. " •' " John Butler 5 00 

" " " " " W.H.Morris J 00 00 

" " « " " Jarard W. Morris 25 00 

Dec. 2. " " " F.C.Gray 25 00 

" 7. " " " J. Dyckman 10 00 

"20. " •' " G. M.Wilkins 25 00 

1839. 

"26. " " " R. F. Carman 30 00 

Jan. 8. " " " J. & M. Dyckman 25 00 

", " " " " John Myer 10 00 

" " " " " Peter Myer 10 00 

" " " " " A. B. Bussing 10 00 

" 10. " " " D. Valentine 10 00 

" 25. " " " Isaac Adriance 25 00 

Feb. 12. " " " W.B.Lawrence 75 00 

" 16. " " " John Butler 5 00 

" " " " " T.W.Ludlow 100 00 

$880 00 



154 



Dr. 

1838. 
Dec. 26. 



28. 
1839. 
Jan'y 2. 

9. 
10. 

'* 10. 
'< 14. 

" 15. 

22. 

Feb'y 12. 

12. 

" 12. 

" 16. 

" 16. 
23. 
" 25. 
" 25. 
" 25. 



25. 
March <1 8. 

" .18. 



Harlem River and Suit with Remvick, 

Amount brought over $637 50 

To Cash, paid hack hire and money spent 
to get the affidavits of 
Williams and Stoddard . 2 50 

" '* expense in city 1 00 



Commissioner's fees 

sundry expenses 

toll and sundries 

for use of scow and spile 

driver 

sundry exp. for last 3 days 
H day's work for man and 

team 

sundries for last three days 
exp'nses for last three days 
expense of trip to Albany, 
blacksmith, for work at 

McComb's Dam 

" " H. P. Loomis, for work at 

the Dam 

To Amount of acc't known as Steamboat 
Thames, and now united with this ac't 
Cash, paid postage 



expenses 

timber for building crane. 

the Messrs. Morgans of 
Jersey City, on the 13th 
November last, for ser- 
vices rendered as per ac't 

on the 13th November, as 
per bill, for printing. 

for one bbl. pitch $2 00, 
25bbls. coke $3 12 

expense of getting same 





38 


1 


25 




75 


15 


00 


2 


12 


3 


75 




63 


1 


50 


61 


61 


7 


37 


11 


44 


1037 


87 




37 




18 


1 


50 


5 


00 



24 


86 


25 


25 


5 


12 


1 


00 


1847 


95 



' . 155 

In Account with L. G. Morris. Cn. 



1838. 



Amount brought over $880 00 

Feb'y 16. By Amount of acc't known as Steamboat 
Thames' acc't, and now united with 

this account 803 29 

May 4. " Received of Wm. B. Lawrence 35 00 

June 7. " ** " Gouveneur Morris a re- 

ceipt for money paid 
to S. M. Stillwell, on 
the 9th of May last, at 

Albany 350 00 

7. " " " F. C, Gray 100 00 

" 29. " " " Peter Valentine, some 

time since 1 00 

July 3. " " " Wm. B. Jiawrence as fol- 
lows, as paid by him for Cham- 
paign in Nov. $ 32 00 

To D. B. Ogden, Sept. 16, 

1838 50 00 

To D. B. Ogden, January 11, 

1839 100 00 

To J. P. Hall, Jan. 25, 1829. 250 00 

Printing 33 00 

465 00 

3. " Received of C. H. Hall, Esq., on this 

acc't as follows : 

Paid for dinner at Hendrick's $155 00 

Paid to J. P. Hall, for the 
purpose of retaining Sam'l 
Stevens, Esq., at Albany. 100 00 

Allowed for scow 50 00 

305 00 

$2948 29 



156 



Dr. Harlem Biver, McComh's Dam and Suit with 

1839. Amount brought over $1847 95 

March 18. To Cash, sent S. M. Stillwell on the 

1 6th of Feb'y last as a retainer at Al'by 50 00 
" 23. ** Cash, p'd for printing in W.C. papers 5 00 
" 23. " " " Piatt, in full for hinges, &c 1 25 

April 2. " " " H. Ward, for securing 

timber 50 

" 6. " " " sundry expense $1 50, 

and labor of team and 

man $2 75 4 25 

'< 10. " " " three men for assisting on 

the river 2 25 

" 26. " " " exp. for self at Albany.. 53 26 
May 4. " " " " " 35 00 

" 4. " " " R. H. Morris, Esq., as p't 

of the fee at Albany.. .. 50 00 
" 7. " *' " for carpenters' work at 

McComb's Dam 23 00 

June 5. " " " Feeks, in full of toll 4 06 

" 7. " " " S.M. Stillwell as fee... 350 00 
" 7, " " <' Jno Weeks, Jr., for la- 
bor at Dam 64 00 

7. " " " Wm. Weeks, " 68 37 

u 7. " " <' Wm. Roe, " 6 00 

" 7. '♦ " " T. Rowland, " 42 81 

'« 7. " *' Expended by L. G. Morris, in 
Jan'y and Feb'y, 1838, for 
the expenses of advertising 
in W. C. Co. papers, and a 
trip to Albany relative to H. 

River 76 31 

" 14. '' Cash, paid Raynolds on acc't Mc- 
Comb's Dam 4 38 

" 22. " Cash, paid John Poole for carrying 

witness 12 50 

" 24. '• Cash, paid expense of witness in city 9 75 

$2710 64 



157 

Renwick, in Account with L. G. Morris. Cr. 

1839. 

Amount brought over $2948 29 

July By Received of Ab'm Valentine on acc't of 

subscription ^^ ^^ 

Sept. 27. " Rec'd of Barker Bussing in full for Sub. 8 00 

Nov. 30. " " Ch's Dickenson 10 00 

« 30. " " John Bussing, Jr 1 00 

$2992 29 



158 

Dr. Harlem, River, McComhs Dam and Suit 

1839. 

Amount brought over $2710 64 

July 3. To amount paid by Wm. B. Lawrence, as 

per credit side 465 00 

" 6. " " " Lawrence, the lumber 

man at Harlem, for 
materials used at 

the Dam 9 25 

" 6. " " ^' C. H. Hall, as the 

credit side of this 
account will show 305 00 
Aug. 20. " " " R. H. Morris, on ac- 

count of services at 
Albany, in May last 50 00 

Sep. 20. For expenses of witness in suit 8 90 

" 27. " " » for Timber for Van 

Cortlandt's Mill, 
forMcComb'sDam 5 97 

Dec, 6. " " " Wm. B. Jenkins, 

for one ensign, 
and signs for 
steamer Thames, 
which ensign and 
signs were burned 
Kings Bridge Ho- 
tel 23 00 

1840. 
Oct. 22. " " " for two subpoenas and 

sending, expenses 
in town suit, 
which did not 

come off 3 00 

" 22. " " « Daniel Lord, Jr., 

on account 50 00 

" 28. " " " Witness' expenses 11 25 

Amount carried over 3642 01 



« 



159 



1840. 



With Renwick, in account with L. G. Morris 



Cr. 



By 



Received of Peter Briggs 



Feb. 


7. " 


Mar. 


20. " 


(( 


a ii 



Amount brought over $2992 29 

5 00 

Wm. Archer 

C. Berrian 

F. C. Gray 

Peter Valentine 

S. D, Archer 



5 


00 


5 


00 


48 


70 


5 


00 


10 


00 


$3070 99 



160 



Dr. Harlem River, McComhs Dam and Suit 

1840. Amount brought over $3642 01 

Oct. 28. To Amount paid Jackson Pool, for three 
days carrying witnesses to and from 

the City HaJl $12 00 

1845. 

Apl. 8. To Amount paid Daniel Lord, Jr., at 
Albany, in full for his argument be- 
fore the Court of Errors 200 00 

" 8. " Sundry expenses paid by me for my 
own traveling fees, &c., for the last 
several years, ac. not kept, supposed 

to be at least 100 00 

' In 1851 and 1852, L. G. Morris attended our State 
Legislature to resist the passage of a bill to bridge 
the Harlem River, at Second Avenue, by the New 
York & New Rochelle Rail Road Co., all of which 
expense was borne by said Morris, which amounted to 

about 500 00 

And in August 1857, said Morris pays the expense 
of printing this compilation 200 00 

$4654 01 



To Balance in favor of L. G. Morris, over and 
above his previous subscriptions $1023 48 



161 

With Remvick, in ac. tuilh L. G. Morris, Cr. 
1840. 

Amount brought over S3070 99 

June 24. By ReceiA^ed of Mrs. M. A. Lorillard in 

full of her subscription 200 00 

Oct. 22. " " of F. C. Gray... 70 25 

Dec. 30. " " " Wm. H. Morris -.. 100 00 

1842. " " " W. B. Lawrence 189 29 

By Balance in favor of L. G. Morris 1023 48 



$4654 01 



UJL '12 



